The Perils of Posting by Paul Douglas Foote

Author:Paul Douglas Foote
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Lexington Books

Chapter 5

Case Studies on Civil Servant Job Action

Civil servants comprise the members of a third group of public employees’ job actions we examine. They are different from the other employee groups in that they typically perform duties that are not at the forefront of public thought. They are also more likely to be in “at-will” job positions. These circumstances, however, have not kept the courts from siding with these employees when it comes to their First Amendment rights regarding matters of public interest. This should be tempered with the knowledge that in all these instances, “being right” was not a foregone conclusion. There was typically job loss, legal proceedings (along with the accompanying costs), and the stress that goes along with both of those. The question comes down to this: Is what you have to say in the public square (which is what social media is), worth the potential personal and professional costs?

The unfortunate thread we found running through most of these cases, whether the employee won or lost the case, was that there should have been more thought given to the posts made by the employee. In many cases the posts were deleted within the day, but the damage had already been done; a screenshot had been captured and generally circulated outside of the employee’s social media group. As we will discuss later, even “joking” remarks can cause damage, both to the employee and their organization. It bears repeating two euphemisms regarding social media that hold true for this group as well: “What goes on social media stays on social media” and “Think before you post!”

Mattingly v. Milligan

In 2011, Dana Mattingly was an employee of the Saline County Circuit Clerk of Arkansas. While having lunch with coworkers at a restaurant, she used her mobile phone to make a couple of posts to her Facebook wall. The off-duty statements were viewed by 1,300 of her Facebook friends. In the posts, Dana shared her distressed feelings after discovering that four of her coworkers were being fired by the newly elected county clerk, Dennis Milligan. The new clerk received six calls at home from anonymous supporters who voiced concerns over his decision to dismiss four public employees. Mr. Milligan’s termination decisions were disseminated by television news stations, newspapers, and an Internet blogger.1 As a result of the public’s reaction and media publicity, Dana Mattingly was fired for her pervasive sentimental postings. The court determined that the “Facebook posts were made primarily to further her private interest in receiving emotional support and affirmation; that she did not make them as an employee but as a citizen.”2 Furthermore, the court stated “that Milligan admitted in his deposition testimony that he understood the Facebook posts to refer to his decision regarding the employees, and that a number of his constituents also interpreted the Facebook posts in this manner, they were concerned enough to call him at home to complain about his actions.” The court determined that the statements were protected as a matter of public

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.