Freedom of Expression on the Job

While the First Amendment protects freedom of expression, American courts have long agreed that free speech is not absolute. Defamatory statements are a form of expression, but the law prohibits them. The same can be said about obscenity. Speech may be subject to other limitations based on the setting. Many forms of expression that enjoy constitutional protection in one context may not be so protected in another. The most prominent example of such a limitation is the law regarding speech in the public workplace. The First Amendment has been interpreted to hold that governmental entities may not take official actions abridging freedom of expression. Accordingly, federal and state courts have ruled that public postsecondary schools may not fire or otherwise discipline employees for their lawful exercise of First Amendment privileges. The right to speak one's mind on the job, however, is subject to certain restrictions. Two landmark US Supreme Court cases guide public employers on what is protected speech for their employees, and what sort of speech might serve as a legal basis for employment discipline. Under Pickering v. Board of Education, a public employer wishing to discipline an employee over statements the employee has made in the workplace must "balance the employee's interest, as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern against the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service[s] it performs through its employees." Following years of repeated challenges against policies at Eastern Wyoming College by a longtime professor, the school suspended the professor without pay. The professor had criticized, among other things, the college's reduction in force procedures, and claimed that the college's president had held himself out as a "doctor" when he in fact did not possess a doctoral degree. When the professor sued the college over her suspension, the court held that these issues were indeed matters of public concern and could not lawfully be the bases of employment discipline. Concerning her attack against the RIF procedures, the court valued the professor's "well-informed perspective on expenditures of public funds." On the president's misrepresentation of his credentials, the court opined that the integrity of a college president could "obviously impact the social and political life of the community."