Employment Law Report
Social Media, Free Speech, and the Workplace: Lessons from Patterson v. Kent State University
Written by Lillie Stivers
The Case: Patterson v. Kent State University
Employee social media activity continues to be a lightning rod for workplace controversy and legal scrutiny. A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals offers a compelling reminder that while employees have the right to speak, employers also have the right to respond.
In this case, Patterson, a transgender professor at Kent State University, was denied several professional opportunities following a series of tweets that spanned roughly three weeks. These tweets included profanity-laced criticisms of university colleagues and administrators, accusations of institutional transphobia, and broader condemnations of academia.
Patterson had expressed interest in becoming the director of the university’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality. Although the administration initially offered a reduced teaching load to help develop a new gender-studies major, they later withdrew that offer and did not appoint Patterson to the director role. Patterson also requested a campus transfer, which was denied.
Patterson sued the university, alleging discrimination based on transgender identity and disability, retaliation, and violation of First Amendment rights.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the university’s actions, affirming summary judgment on all claims. Here’s why:
· Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons: The court found that the university’s decisions were based on Patterson’s conduct, not identity. The tweets were deemed disparaging, profane, and disruptive to the workplace, violating university policies.
· First Amendment Limits: The court ruled that Patterson’s speech was not protected because it did not address matters of public concern. Instead, it constituted personal attacks on colleagues. Moreover, the university’s interest in maintaining a productive educational environment outweighed Patterson’s interest in what the court bluntly described as “trash talk.”
Takeaways
This case underscores a few critical points for employers navigating the murky waters of employee speech:
· Social Media Isn’t a Free Pass: Employees’ online behavior, especially when it targets coworkers or creates a toxic environment, can have professional consequences.
· Policy Matters: Clear, consistently enforced workplace policies around conduct and communication are essential. They provide the framework for lawful and defensible decisions.
· Context Is Crucial: Not all controversial speech is unprotected. Employers must carefully assess whether the speech touches on public concern and whether disciplinary action is proportionate.
· Consult Counsel: Before taking action, especially in sensitive cases involving identity or protected speech, seek legal guidance. The stakes are high, and missteps can lead to costly litigation.
The Patterson case is a cautionary tale for both employees and employers. For employees, it’s a reminder that venting online, especially in ways that target colleagues, can backfire professionally. For employers, it reinforces the importance of thoughtful, policy-driven responses to problematic speech. As always, when in doubt, gather the facts, review your policies, talk to the employee, and consult with your labor and employment counsel.
