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. 

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  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.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: