A jury will consider a former teacher’s (Mr. Moorehead) First Amendment claim against his former employer, a Pennsylvania School District (the “District”).  The claim arose from Mr. Moorehead’s attendance at the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, and his subsequent separation from employment with the District.

Mr. Moorehead traveled down to Washington D.C. to attend President Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6, 2021, and he posted several Facebook posts on his personal account about his attendance. The Facebook posts showed Mr. Moorehead at the rally, him waiting in line for a hotdog, and two political memes related to the January 6th events. Mr. Moorehead’s Facebook posts soon caught the attention of the District, and Mr. Moorehead was eventually identified as a District teacher in social media posts on the District’s Facebook pages. He was then advised by the District to not report to work “because of yesterday,” and he was eventually suspended by the District due to his involvement in the January 6 rally.

Following an investigation that lasted several months, the District offered Mr. Moorehead a new position, but required that he complete cultural competency training regarding black and Hispanic U.S. History. Mr. Moorehead refused the District’s offer and claimed that the District had constructively discharged him by falsely connecting him to the January 6th Capitol riots. In response, the District terminated Mr. Moorehead’s employment, citing his “willful neglect of duties” for failing to return to work as the basis for his termination.

Mr. Moorehead filed a lawsuit against the District, claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights when they defamed and constructively discharged him in retaliation for his attendance at a political rally and his political affiliation. The District filed a motion for summary judgment in an attempt to end the case before it could proceed to trial. U.S. District Judge John M. Gallagher of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and determined that Mr. Moorehead’s First Amendment claims should proceed to trial.

The Court noted that “[a] public employee’s right to speak about matters of public concern must not be allowed to halt the operations of, say, a public school. On the other hand, the degree of disruption required will vary depending on the speech at issue.” The Court analyzed whether Mr. Moorehead’s speech was properly considered protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court held that the activity in question was protected speech because it was speech concerning one’s preference for President.  The Court also concluded that Mr. Moorehead had not participated in the riots, and that the Facebook posts “were made on his personal Facebook page, which was not public. His Facebook page did not affiliate him with [the District].”

The Court went on to hold that a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Moorehead’s protected speech was a substantial factor in his suspension and ultimate termination, as the defendants had published a statement that incorrectly placed Mr. Moorehead at the Capitol riots, refused to correct the statement, and coordinated with outside groups to encourage statements against Mr. Moorehead based on that same false statement. Additionally, the Court allowed Mr. Moorehead’s claim of political affiliation discrimination to survive. The case is now scheduled to proceed before a trial, and a jury will decide whether or not the District violated Mr. Moorehead’s First Amendment rights.

The timing of this case is certainly relevant as we enter into the 2024 election cycle. It is a sure thing that political discourse will only increase as we approach November, and the issue of protected political speech will definitely be a hot topic for employers.  With that increased discourse, all employers need to be ready to strike a balance between allowing their employees to express their political ideologies while still maintaining order in their daily operations.