Hate Speech as Protected Conduct: Reworking the Approach to Offensive Speech under the NLRA

• Author: Carly Thelen
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2019. B.S.B.A., 2015, Creighton University
• Pages: 985-1015

985

Hate Speech as Protected Conduct:

Reworking the Approach to Offensive

Speech under the NLRA

Carly Thelen*

ABSTRACT: Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”)

protects employees who engage in concerted activities for purposes of mutual

aid and protection. The National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”)

enforces section 7 by protecting employee speech when the speech is related to

concerted activity. The Board, using a broad interpretation of section 7, has

extended protection to offensive speech, even hate speech. This Note argues

that this broad interpretation of section 7 to protect hate speech is contrary to

public policy and does not properly account for employers’ interest in not being

associated with employees who engage in hate speech. This Note further argues

for a reworked approach to cases involving offensive speech. The reworked

approach incorporates a categorization of the speech to determine the level of

protection. This approach properly considers employers’ interests while

maintaining the NLRA’s purpose—to prevent employer unfair labor

practices.

I.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 986

II.THE NLRA AND PROTECTED EMPLOYEE SPEECH ......................... 989

A.THE TRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP ..................... 989

B.COMMON STATUTORY REMEDIES TO EMPLOYEE FREE

SPEECH CLAIMS....................................................................... 989

C.THE NLRA AND ITS GENERAL PROTECTIONS ............................ 991

1.Employees’ Rights Under Section 7 ............................ 992

2.Enforcement Under Section 8 ..................................... 994

3.Unprotected Conduct Under Section 7 ...................... 994

D.THE BOARD’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTECTED SPEECH ............ 995

1.The General Framework for Evaluating Whether

Offensive Speech is Protected ...................................... 996

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2019. B.S.B.A., 2015, Creighton

University.

986 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 104:985

2.How the Board has Applied the Offensive

Speech Framework in Cases Involving

Hate Speech ................................................................... 998

III.THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RETAINING EMPLOYEES WHO

ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH ........................................................... 1000

A.A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT STIFLES EMPLOYEES

AND DAMAGES WORK MORALE .............................................. 1001

B.FAILURE TO ACT AGAINST HATE SPEECH DAMAGES

COMPANIES’ REPUTATIONS .................................................... 1003

C.CONFLICTING DOCTRINES AND THE RESULTING

EMPLOYER EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION RISKS ........................... 1004

IV.THE CLASSIFICATION AND REBALANCING APPROACH ................. 1006

A.THE REWORKED BALANCING TEST APPLIED TO

PROTECTED HATE SPEECH ..................................................... 1007

1.Using Categorizations to Determine Level

of Protection ................................................................ 1007

2.The Picket Line vs. the Work Line: Setting

Matters but is No Longer Dispositive ......................... 1009

3.Accounting for Employers’ Interests ......................... 1010

4.Final Balancing Act: “Nature of the Outburst”

Weighed Against Other Factors ................................. 1010

B.THE BALANCING ACT IN PRACTICE ........................................ 1011

1.Rebalancing with Proper Consideration for

Category of the Speech ............................................... 1011

2.Predicting Outcomes of Contemporary News

Events ........................................................................... 1012

V.CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 1015

I. INTRODUCTION

Recent political and ideological division within the United States has

renewed the debate about an employee’s freedom to express political beliefs.1

Particularly in wake of the resurgence of the white nationalism movement

—most notably the rally in Charlottesville, where a counter-protester was

killed2—there has been renewed debate about whether an employer can fire

1. See David Smith, Divided States of America: 62% Say Trump is Driving People Apart, Poll Finds,

GUARDIAN (Aug. 24, 2017, 11:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/24/

trump-approval-rating-division-poll (discussing American voters’ contrasting views on whether or

not President Trump is bringing the nation together or polarizing the country).

2. Joe Heim, Recounting a Day of Rage, Hate, Violence and Death, WASH. POST (Aug. 14, 2017),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/charlottesville-timeline.