Employment Law

• Date: 01 April 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30181
• Published date: 01 April 2016

10

APRIL 2016

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Employment Law

Public nature of employee’s speech

keeps case alive

On Feb. 16, 2014, Troy Brown—director of the

Leore County’s emergency management agency—

published a guest column in the local newspaper that

claimed that the county’s administrator was exert-

ing undue inuence over the county commissioners.

Claiming that lives were at stake, he specically listed

safety problems purportedly caused by that undue

inuence.

Two days later, the same newspaper published an

editorial that was very critical of Brown’s guest col-

umn. Brown responded in a letter to the editor that

was published on Feb. 23 entitled “This is more than

a workplace tiff.”

When the county red him the next day, Brown

led a suit claiming violations of his First Amend-

ment rights. The county responded with a motion for

summary judgment.

It rst argued that Brown had written as the direc-

tor of the emergency management agency instead of

as a private citizen. It claimed that Brown had merely

been complaining about his duties in both publications.

District Judge Debra Brown explained that a pub-

lic employee only had the right of free speech when

speaking as a private citizen about a matter of public

concern. She rejected the county’s argument, stating

that the mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerned

information acquired by virtue of his public employ-

ment did not keep it from being published as a private

citizen.

The county next argued that Brown’s publications

were not entitled to protection because they were

merely thinly veiled attempts to make a public concern

out of a personal grievance.

The judge explained that a public employee’s speech

involved matters of public concern when it could be

fairly considered as relating to any matter of political,

social or other concern to the community, or when it

was a subject of legitimate news interest. She also said

that if the speech would inform the populace of more

than the fact of an employee’s employment grievance,

the content of the speech could be public in nature.

The judge stated that because Brown was the direc-

tor of the agency charged with preparing for natural

disasters, his personal employment interest was inex-

tricably linked to a matter of great public concern,

which was public safety. She acknowledged that his

publications contained elements of both personal and

public concern, but ruled that their primary issues of

public safety could fairly be considered as relating to

community matters.

The county also argued that many of Brown’s ex-

amples were overstated or false. But the judge stated

that whether an employee’s speech was true played

no role in the determination of whether the speech

concerned a matter of public interest.

EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ Weighing the content, form

and context of Brown’s two publications together,

Judge Brown denied the motion for summary judg-

ment, ruling that he had merely touched on an element

of personal grievance within the broader context of a

matter of public concern.

[Brown v. Leore County, Mississippi, U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, No.

4:14-CV-00114, 12/15/2015].

Retaliation

Judge refuses ‘manager rule’

in Title VII case

In 2012, Alonzo Chapman became assistant re

chief at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International

Airport.

About a year later, Chapman disagreed with the

chief’s decision to not hire a female who had al-

legedly been ranked highest among the candidates.

The chief reportedly stated that he refused to hire

her because the department had “enough female

reghters.” According to Chapman, his strong

objections to the decision were made known within

the department.

Over the next few months, Chapman’s duties were

reduced. He was removed from: overseeing the as-

sessment of reghter applicants, inspecting and

purchasing re trucks, acting as safety ofcer and

assisting in policy development.

He led a suit. One of his claims was retaliation

in violation of Title VII.