Bennett v. Metro

Facts of the Case

In Bennett v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the court found that the government employer had the right to discipline the employee, Vicky Bennett, for her Facebook post, which contained racially charged language and could be construed as impeding the mission of the government agency where she worked. Bennett argued that she had a right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment. Her employer believed that as a face of Metro she should have refrained from suggestive verbiage that would reflect poorly on the enterprise. The issue came down to what are known as Pickering factors, which weigh the employee's interest in free speech against the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of public services (Oluwole, 2007). The Pickering test is a legal framework to balance the competing interests of public employees in free speech and government employers in maintaining an efficient workplace. The test consists of several factors that are considered in determining whether a public employee's speech is protected under the First Amendment. These factors include the content, form, and context of the employee's speech, i.e., what the employee said, how they said it, and the context in which it was said; the context of the employee's job, i.e., the nature of the employee's job, including whether they have a role in policymaking or public communication; the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of public services, i.e., the government's need to maintain an effective and efficient workplace; the impact of the employee's speech on the workplace, i.e., whether the employee's speech disrupts or interferes with the workplace and the employer's ability to carry out its mission; and whether it is a matter of public concern (Oluwole, 2007).

Bennett argued she was retaliated against for her speech, which was conservative or right-leaning in its orthodoxy. However, the language in the post was clearly socially unacceptable by todays politically correct standards and included racial slurs like the n-word and reference to being a proud redneck. But was this enough to justify her termination?that was essentially the question put to the court. Initially, the lower court ruled it was not. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately held that the district court erred in its analysis of the Pickering factors. The court found that the disruption of the workplace and harm to working relationships were significant enough to justify the employer's disciplinary action, and that Bennett's comments were not a matter of public concern, which would have required the employer to meet a higher burden of proof to justify discipline. Therefore, the court found that the employer's action did not violate Bennett's First Amendment rights.

Balancing of First Amendment Rights

As public employees, government workers have a right to free speech under the First Amendment, but this right is not absolute. The Supreme Court has recognized that the government has a right to regulate the speech of its employees to promote the efficiency of its services and avoid disruption in the workplace (Schoen, 1999). Therefore, public employees may...…a neutral decision-maker. The due process rights of public employees are generally derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection and due process of law. What constitutes adequate due process can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case, but generally, it requires a fair and impartial hearing, an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and a decision based on the evidence presented.

In Bennett's case, the court found that the government employer had afforded her adequate due process rights before making the decision to terminate her employment. The government agency provided Bennett with due process protections before terminating her employment. After several employees and an outsider complained about Bennett's Facebook post, she was placed on paid administrative leave while an investigation was conducted. Bennett was then given a due process hearing where she was able to present her case and evidence, and she was represented by an attorney. In other words, she was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her and present her case during the due process hearing. Her employer made a decision based on her own arguments and the evidence and arguments of others. This is the essence of due process, and the Appeals court demonstrated that Bennetts right to due process was not violated by the process by which her employer handled her case internally. As a public service employer, it provided her an opportunity to respond to the facts of the case after reviewing them and before making a decision…