Employee’s Facebook Venting not Protected Speech

A police officer had a Facebook page which was set to "private," but was viewable to any of her numerous Facebook "friends," who could then potentially distribute material on her page more broadly. On her page, she had posted a comment criticizing an investigator in her department. The department had a work rule requiring that any criticism of a fellow officer be directed through official department channels, and should not be used to to the disadvantage of the reputation or operation of the department or employees.

During the investigation, various promotions occurred, but the officer did not receive a promotion. She claimed that the chief's failure to promote her was in retaliation for the Facebook comment, and that that was a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The department and chief, however, claimed that she was not really eligible for promotion because she was in the middle of a pending disciplinary investigation.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the police chief and dismissed the officer's suit. The officer appealed.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a police officer could be disciplined for violating a work rule under these circumstances. The Court looked at whether the speech was a matter of public concern, whether her interest in speaking outweighed the government's legitimate interest in efficient public service, and whether the speech played a substantial part in the government's challenged employment decision.

The officer's sole argument on appeal was that her comments did not cause any sort of interference or disruption in the efficient operation of the department, so the factors should weigh in her favor. The Court disagreed. A reasonable possibility of disruption of the legitimate interests of the department was demonstrated.

Ultimately, the Court found that it was undisputed that the officer violated the work rule, and that the legitimate interests of the department outweighed the officer's interest in speaking in this manner. This is because the context of the officer's speech was not one calculated to bring an issue of public concern to the attention of persons with authority to make corrections, nor was it an effort to bring matters to the public's attention, but instead was an officer venting her frustrations with her superiors. Thus, her free speech rights were not violated, and the district court's judgment was affirmed.