Texas CCA Judge sued for First Amendment violations

[DanRydell 799]

If the allegations in the complaint are true and she was fired for private Facebook posts made by her criticizing GOP officials, she has a great case. As an administrative assistant, she’s a non-political employee. Her speech was in her private capacity. And the speech was on a matter of public concern.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/23/lawsuit-claims-republican-judge-fired-secretary-social-media-posts-sup/

[kevwun 15,897]

So I completely understand it's her right, but intentionally pissing off your boss isn't a great idea.  If his party's politics bothered her that much, she should have changed jobs.  The guy could also be a raging asshole, but it feels like she baited him in to a lawsuit.

[Jack Burton 35]

That's a shitty take

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

The court of criminal appeals is a clown show. 

[kevwun 15,897]

No doubt, but when you work for a politician it’s not smart to publicly disagree with his or her politics. Most folks who work for one understand this. She may have a great case, but her boss getting pissed is not surprising.

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6,690]

On 5/24/2018 at 1:11 PM, kevwun said:

So I completely understand it's her right, but intentionally pissing off your boss isn't a great idea.  If his party's politics bothered her that much, she should have changed jobs.  The guy could also be a raging asshole, but it feels like she baited him in to a lawsuit.

 

8 hours ago, kevwun said:

No doubt, but when you work for a politician it’s not smart to publicly disagree with his or her politics. Most folks who work for one understand this. She may have a great case, but her boss getting pissed is not surprising.

 

 

This take is fucking stupid and you're part of the problem.

[pyrohornIII 4,823]

Your political or religious/philosophical leanings should have no sway over your job security any more than the color of your skin, your age, your sexual orientation, nor gender.   As long as none of that interferes in performing the job within its definition.

But too often bosses act out of personal reasons to fire people and not job performance.  

And with Texas being a right to fire state,  I am not sure she will gain much.   My ex wife went through something similar on a local level a decade ago.   The cost of pursuing the case was estimated to be about 4 times what she would collect in damages.    And there was a lot of slander and libel flying around. 

Supposedly one of the few perks of being a government employee is the retirement package.  I would think after 14 years she would take that into account when it came to possibly leaving for a different position elsewhere.   

So Brian is right from a righteous standpoint, but Kev is right from the way the deck is stacked. 

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

Texas' employment-at-will doctrine does not mitigate an employee's right to be free from termination for unlawful reasons, like this retaliation.  It appears that she is going federal, so I hope they put the screws to this jerkoff.  The state is going to wind up being liable, but one would hope that a verdict in her favor would bring some reaction from the judicial conduct commission.

And, I think it is wise not to put anything on your social media that would piss off your superiors, but if they take unlawful action like this, the law should be available to bring them to task.

Edited May 26, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[bschoolprof 6,272]

Is this only potentially unlawful because the state is her employer? Otherwise, why would the first amendment even apply?

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

21 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

Is this only potentially unlawful because the state is her employer? Otherwise, why would the first amendment even apply?

Unless I am mistaken, no, it is covered by Title VII, employment discrimination.  Any employer could be on the hook for this.

 

Edit:  Well, it appears that I am incorrect.  While Title VII does cover certain retaliatory adverse employment actions (firing, etc.), it apparently does not cover 1st Amendment.  The 1st Amendment retaliation thing is only available under 1983 when the employer is a state actor.

Edited May 27, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[futureman 22,545]

17 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

 

This take is fucking stupid and you're part of the problem.

you’re such an amusing character on this board.  never disappoint. 

[DanRydell 799]

Unless I am mistaken, no, it is covered by Title VII, employment discrimination.  Any employer could be on the hook for this.
 
Edit:  Well, it appears that I am incorrect.  While Title VII does cover certain retaliatory adverse employment actions (firing, etc.), it apparently does not cover 1st Amendment.  The 1st Amendment retaliation thing is only available under 1983 when the employer is a state actor.

Yeah, it’s just a first amendment case. If your employer isn’t the government, they can fire you for your political comments (although some states have laws prohibiting that I believe).

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

 

Yeah, it’s just a first amendment case. If your employer isn’t the government, they can fire you for your political comments (although some states have laws prohibiting that I believe).

 

Yes and Texas does not,it appears. Not sure how I got my retaliation all goofed up. 

[scottsins 1,969]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes and Texas does not,it appears. Not sure how I got my retaliation all goofed up. 

This confuses me because it is REALLY common for newly elected DA’s offices to fire prosecutors and staff who supported their opponents in the election.

A friend of mine from law school was fired by Craig Watson because he attended Watson’s opponent’s election returns event.

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

3 hours ago, scottsins said:

This confuses me because it is REALLY common for newly elected DA’s offices to fire prosecutors and staff who supported their opponents in the election.

A friend of mine from law school was fired by Craig Watson because he attended Watson’s opponent’s election returns event.

Interesting and valid point, and as public employees, they don't need a boost from Texas law.  I guess like the discrimination cases, retaliation can be hard to prove if perhaps there's another motive (loyalty?).  I know a guy in a similar position.

[DanRydell 799]

This confuses me because it is REALLY common for newly elected DA’s offices to fire prosecutors and staff who supported their opponents in the election.

A friend of mine from law school was fired by Craig Watson because he attended Watson’s opponent’s election returns event.

 

Courts have held that prosecutors are political positions as they’re entrusted to make decisions to carry out the political agenda of the elected DA. Aucoin v. Haney, 306 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2002).

 

Public defenders on the other hand are protected because their duty is to represent the individual defendant before them rather than any broad policy position. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).

[Huckleberry 33,096]

Is this only potentially unlawful because the state is her employer? Otherwise, why would the first amendment even apply?

Been covered now, but this is why public supervisors have to be smarter than to fire someone for a reason like this. If it's true then this clown just wasted my money and your money because he's an idiot.