Can 当地政府s Discipline Employees for Violation of their Social Media Policies?

今年早些时候，第四巡回法院判决了一起案件，该案件将两个基本利益对立起来:公职人员根据第一修正案享有的言论自由权，以及政府为公众提供高效现金网官网的能力. 在社交媒体时代, the historic tension between these two interests has only become more contentious.

In Grutzmacher v. 霍华德县, 851 F.3d 333(第4章. 2017),  马里兰州霍华德县消防局(“消防局”)的一名营长根据他在Facebook上的帖子和“点赞”起诉消防局进行报复性射击.” In response to a Facebook incident in 2011, 这个部门 drafted a social media policy, 标题为社交媒体指南, 以及随附的行为准则. 的 Social Media Guidelines prohibited personnel:

"[F]rom posting or publishing any statements, 代言, 或者其他语言, 信息, 可被合理解释为代表或破坏本部门观点或立场的图像或人事事项, 霍华德县, or officials acting on behalf of 这个部门 or County…. [F]rom posting or publishing statements, 意见或信息 that might reasonably be interpreted as discriminatory, 骚扰, 诽谤, racially or ethnically derogatory, or sexually violent when such statements, 意见或信息, 可能会使部门名誉扫地或对部门执行其任务的能力产生负面影响……(从)发布涉及可能损害部门或部门任何成员声誉的非工作活动的任何信息或图像." 

行为准则, which was aimed at ensuring Department members maintained “integrity and ethical conduct 无论是上班还是下班,” prohibited Department personnel from "intentionally engag[ing] in conduct, 通过行动或言语, 哪些是不尊重的, or that otherwise undermines the authority of, 主管或指挥系统”和“公开批评或嘲笑部门或霍华德县政府或其政策”，同时要求“[m]成员在任何时候都要表现良好。, 无论是上班还是下班, in such a manner as to reflect favorably on 这个部门." 的 Code of Conduct also prohibited Department employees from engaging in "[c]onduct unbecoming" to 这个部门, which it defined as "any conduct that reflects poorly on an individual member, 这个部门, 或县政府, or that is detrimental to the public trust in 这个部门 or that impairs the operation and efficiency of 这个部门." 

Just over a year after 这个部门 adopted the Social Media Guideline and the Code of Conduct, 这名员工在Facebook上发布了一份声明，引用了有关枪支管制辩论的新闻报道，并暗示要用另一名自由主义者杀死一名自由主义者.随后，这名员工在他的控枪帖子上“点赞”了一名县志愿护理人员发来的支持但带有种族暗示的回复. 该声明和“点赞”引起了该部门官员的注意，他们告诉该员工，他的帖子违反了该部门的社交媒体指南和行为准则，并指示该员工删除该帖子. 这名员工遵守了规定，但在Facebook上发布了另一份声明，嘲笑司法部的指导方针和行为准则，并援引宪法第一修正案对言论自由的保障. 这名员工后来还“点赞”了一张照片，照片上是一位竖起中指的老妇人，照片的标题是指向该部门的负责人的. 最终, 该部门解雇了这名员工，理由是他在Facebook上的活动违反了该部门的指导方针和行为准则. 这名员工随后起诉司法部，称解雇他是对他行使第一修正案权利的报复，他还质疑司法部社交媒体指南和行为准则的合宪性.

法院维持了解雇这名雇员的判决，认为这名雇员就公众关注的枪支管制问题和该部门的社交媒体政策发表的言论，比该部门限制纠纷和不和的利益更重要, avoiding the appearance of racial bias, promoting community trust in enforcing department policies, and discouraging disrespect and insubordination.

的 Grutzmacher 舆论反映了政府机构和部门在试图制定社交媒体政策时所面临的复杂性，而这些政策在其他企业中很常见. 政府实体, 因为雇主, face the unique challenge of being subject to constitutional challenge given that employment decisions constitutes state action. 此外, public employees hold a particular status in the law that protects them when speaking on matters of public concern. 法律将公职人员视为对政府实体的一种检查，因为这些雇员最熟悉该实体的活动，并且处于最有利的位置，可以发表公众关注的问题. 然而, 政府机构, 作为雇主, has an interest in operating efficiently in order to effectively provide its service to the public. Grutzmacher is a product of when those two interests collide and in this case, 第四巡回法院发现，政府对高效和有效运作的兴趣超过了布克对自由发表公共事务言论的兴趣.

监督公共实体和机构的政府官员可以从第四巡回法院对布克Facebook声明的处理中获得有价值的见解. 的 Grutzmacher 法院没有对布克对《现金网官网》的质疑作出裁决，因为司法部删除了据称冒犯性的条款, thus the court found the Buker’s claim in that regard was moot. 但法院确实提供了一个有价值的概述，说明那些在政府实体中有雇佣和解雇责任的人在根据社交媒体政策评估公职人员的社交媒体行为时应该记住什么:

• A “like” on social media is speech.
• Speech involving matters of public concern is constitutionally protected.
• Speech involves a matter of public concern when it involves an issue of social, 政治, 或者对社区的其他兴趣.
• Context and common sense is considered when asking if a member of the community be truly concerned with the employee’s speech.
• Speech on matters of personal interest is not constitutionally protected.
• Personal grievances and complaints about conditions of employment do not constitute speech about matters of public concern.
• 内部政策事宜, including mere allegations of favoritism, 就业的谣言, and other complaints of interpersonal discord, are not treated as matters of public policy.
• 的 effect of the speech on the government entity’s mission, function, and personnel is considered.

使用这些规则 Grutzmacher 法院裁定，该雇员关于枪支管制立法和司法部社交媒体指南的声明作为公众关注事项受到公共雇员言论原则的保护. 另一方面, the employee’s “like” of the elderly lady with her middle finger raised was an unprotected personal grievance. 然而, 该员工的社交媒体活动“挫败了该部门的公共安全使命，威胁到了该部门的‘社区信任’。,” undermined 这个部门’s hierarchical command and discipline structure, and it had the potential to “diminish 这个部门’s standing with the public.法庭认为, 这些政府利益都超过了雇员就枪支管制问题和司法部的社交媒体指导方针和行为准则发表意见的兴趣.

原告在 Grutzmacher filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court on June 19, 2017, so the case is not over quite yet. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, 它将进一步明确政府官员应如何评估公职人员的社交媒体活动和言论. 与此同时, 政府官员可以惩罚违反社交媒体政策的员工，但他们在制定和应用社交媒体政策时应谨慎行事，并确保他们的行为符合现行判例法.

杰夫·罗森 是现金网官网的股东吗 & 现金网官网 focusing his practice on local government and labor and employment matters.  For more 信息, contact Jeff at jrosen@hughbie53.net or (757) 490-6253.