Royal

Is a Personal TikTok Protected by the First Amendment?

October 5, 2023

Where a plaintiff teacher has alleged that she was retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court has held in favor of the defendants. The court found that the defendants had produced ample evidence to show that the plaintiff’s speech had the potential to disrupt the school district’s learning environment.


Defendants did not contest that the teacher produced the TikTok videos in question as a private citizen or that her posts were a motivating factor in the decision to terminate. Instead, Defendants argued that the teacher’s speech caused a ‘disruption to teaching and learning’ which justified her termination.


It is undisputed that at least some teachers were concerned about the learning environment, but less clear that teachers needed to devote substantial class time to addressing distractions caused by the posts. Nor were there reports of calls or complaints from parents or other community members.


The court held that the Defendants need not allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.


As a public-school teacher, contact with the public, including students and parents who may have been part of groups that the teacher’s posts disparaged, was part of the teacher’s day-to-day responsibilities. The teacher herself acknowledged that her posts could be viewed as derogatory towards transgender individuals.


Several colleagues recognized the posts as inconsistent with the District’s mission to promote tolerance and respect for human differences. Moreover, Defendants’ concerns regarding the nature of the teacher’s posts were directly tied to a risk of disruption in student learning; especially posts regarding transgender students, could make students feel unsafe, unwelcome, or otherwise distracted from learning.


Ultimately, the court held that the Defendants were entitled to terminate a public-facing employee who had taken a stance in direct contradiction to the District’s stated mission.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways 1. Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. 2. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. 3. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process . If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: