Employment Law
Employee Fired for Expressing Political Views by Displaying Confederate Flag at Work (Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, 4th Cir. U.S. Ct. of Appeals, May 30, 2003)
In September, 2000, Coburg Dairy terminated Matthew Dixon, an employee of three years, for a violation of Coburg's anti-harrassment policy by failing, after being requested by Coburg, to remove two Confederate flag stickers from his tool box used at work. The request followed a complaint by a black co-worker who found the stickers racially offensive. Dixon's termination occurred after Dixon's rejection of a compromise proposal whereby Coburg offered to purchase an unadorned tool box for Dixon to use at work. Coburg's anti-harrassment policy, of which Dixon was aware, stated that harrassment may take the form of derogatory posters, cartoons, drawings or gestures and that violation of this policy may result in discipline including termination.
At the time of this incident, South Carolina, the home of Coburg, was involved in an intense public debate over the removal of the Confederate battle flag from atop the state capitol dome, and Dixon had strong political feelings on this issue, being an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Dixon subsequently sued Coburg for wrongful termination alleging essentially that his "first amendment" constitutional rights were violated by being terminated for expressing political opinions. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Coburg and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on appeal upheld the trial court's decision in favor of Coburg.
Is there a "first amendment" issue in this case at all? Technically, the First Amendment protecting free speech isn't directly applicable to this private employment situation because the First Amendment only protects individuals' rights against governmental intrusions and not intrusions by private entities like Dixon's employer. However, the Court of Appeals nimbly avoids this technicality by restating the key issue in terms of state employment law. Like most states, including California, an employer has the right to terminate an at-will employee for any reason, no reason or even a bad reason, subject only to a few limitations. One key limitation is that the termination of an at-will employee is wrongful if such termination violates a clear mandate of public policy. Since violating an employee's constitutional right of "free speech" is an obvious violation of a very significant public policy, if Dixon's termination arose from the violation of his "free speech" rights, then Dixon has a valid claim for wrongful termination. Thus, the Court of Appeals must address the question of whether Dixon has the right to display the flag stickers at work under the First Amendment.
Does Dixon have the constitutionally protected right to display the flag stickers at work? The Court of Appeals said no. The Court of Appeals recognizes that the First Amendment offers broad protections to the expression of political views which the display of the flag stickers clearly is; however, there are limitations on such expression. Dixon could not be and was not fired for merely holding the view that the Confederate battle flag should continue to be at the top of the state capitol dome.
An employer may not terminate an employee merely because the employee is a Democrat, Republican or member of the Green Party. Nor may an employee terminate an employee because the employee participated in pro- Confederate flag rallies at the state capitol on his own time. Coburg never asked Dixon to change his political views on this issue; indeed, another employee of Coburg engaging in the same course of conduct as Dixon was not terminated when he agreed to accept the new tool box compromise offered Dixon. The only thing being asked of Dixon was that he alter his expression of his political opinions on privately-owned property, i.e., his expression at the workplace be done in such a fashion so as to be less likely to goad co-workers into emotional confrontations disruptive of a harmonious and efficient work environment. Also, the Court of Appeals notes that such limitation is necessary, as otherwise the employer could face liability from the offended employees under Title VII which requires employers to provide a discrimination free work environment.
Could the Democratic National Committee fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican?