Discussion
Department of Health
For this discussion, assume you have a job with the federal government in the Department of Health. You work in a back room and do not engage with the public, but you specifically deal with childbirth issues. You are also heavily involved in many social causes, including membership in several anti-abortion groups. After work, you often march and protest with these groups throughout Washington, DC. You wear many t-shirts to work that express your anti-abortion beliefs. There is no dress code at work, but several of the employees have complained to your boss about the clothes you wear to work. Your boss has told you that you can no longer wear your anti-abortion t-shirts to work and that you might want to rethink your after work activities.
For your initial response, discuss who is right – you or your boss? Be sure to incorporate course concepts from this week’s reading into your response. You are making constitutional arguments, so do not focus on the anti-abortion subject matter.
Peer Response Respond to each of the two students:
Timothy
If there is truly no dress code, then the boss is in the wrong in this scenario. If the boss believes that personal beliefs are affecting the work being done, then he or she should address the performance issues, and not directly the dress code issue. Since there is no dress code in existence, it can be an infringment on an employees first amendement right to free speech to not allow them to wear a t-shirt supporting their personal views. The boss could have a conversation about the t-shirts and messaging, and request them not to be worn, but to outright disallow it would be wrong. The question here is if the attire is causing the workplace to become hostile or is it affecting performance of any employees. The resolution may be that a dress code is needed, in which case it will be difficult to draw the line, for a government office, as to what is acceptable and what is not without infringing on a person's first amendment right. At the same time, it is important to create a workspace that is not threatining to other workers and allows them to go about their work.
As for the second issue, attending protests during personal time, this again is no place for the boss to tell an employee what he or she can do in their free time. The First amendment guarantees everyone the right to peaceably protest. This includes government employees. As long as the protesting is done on personal time and within other legal boundaries, there should be no reason for a boss to tell any government employee that they need to "rethink" their after work activities.
Amy
In the first part of the case of a Department of Health worker, I believe the employer was within their rights to restrict the employee from wearing disruptive work attire, regardless of the message behind the disruption. Our text cites two areas of reference for this topic. The first is that this situation is an example of content vs. context. Whereas, the government may not consider the content of what is being said, but they can regulate how, where, and when those expressions are being shared. The second points of reference are the historical precidents in which the courts have ruled in favor of the government organizations over an employee's First Amendment rights, as in the cases of Natalie Monroe or Richard Ceballos. (McAdams, pg. 198) In a measure of weighing the government agency's interest against a single government employee, it would seem that the courts tend to favor the agency's interests above the individual's. On a personal note, at my company, we maintain a policy of no political, religious, or social promotion or derrogatory campaigning, advertising, or publishing of one's opinions in the workplace. It is a policy of inclusion, rather than exclusion however. Even if an employee doesn't interface with the public, it would reflect poorly on the company if anyone were to feel ostracized because of something that one person in the company were to display. In the second part of this case, I believe the employer to be in the wrong. While the employee is not working, they should be considered as a private citizen exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Provided they are adhering to the law with regard to the context of their marches or other protest activities, they shouldn't be regulated or be made to fear reprisal for how they spend their free time.