Must An Employer Tolerate Truly Obnoxious Employee Speech That Is Not Job-Related?

stressed workerThere is a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University School of Communications and Multi-Media Studies who has gained notoriety because of his public statements, including a blog, which claim that virtually every mass shooting or terror attack – including 9/11 and the recent shooting in San Bernardino, California - is a fake. In particular, he has claimed that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School was staged, and has used names and photographs of the victims in his publications. The parents of one of the Sandy Hook victims have recently charged him with harassment for, among other things, questioning their son’s death certificate.

The professor was reprimanded by Florida Atlantic University in 2013 because he failed to make clear on his blog that his views were not endorsed by his employer. According to an article in the Huffington Post, the university has now started proceedings to revoke his tenure and fire him, and he has said he will rely on a free speech defense.

You might think that any employer would have the right to dissociate itself from an employee whose published statements are so shameful and repugnant. But a Connecticut employer finding itself in this situation would have to pause to consider the effect of Connecticut’s employee free speech statute, Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-51q. The statute protects an employee from employment discipline based on the exercise of First Amendment rights. This has been held to mean that an employee may not be disciplined or discharged for public statements that are not made in the performance of his or her official employment duties, unless the employee’s activity “substantially or materially interferes with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer.”

Section 31-51q was intended to protect employees from retaliation by their employers for expressing views on public matters with which the employer may differ. An employer such as the university very well might be able to demonstrate that just being associated with the professor’s level of extremism is damaging to its reputation, and discourages prospective students and faculty from applying.   But because of Section 31-51q, a Connecticut employer – including a public university – could not simply rely on the outrageous nature of the professor’s statements, but would have to show that the his work performance, or the working relationship between him and his employer, was substantially harmed. Such is the price of free speech.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts


Jump to Page