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. 

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: