Tag Archives: association

Clicking ‘like’ is protected by First Amendment, 4th Circuit says

The ABA Journal has an interesting case regarding Facebook and its “likes.”  If you use Facebook, it is very likely that you have “liked” a page, a comment, a photo, etc.  The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a “like” is protected under the First Amendment.

In Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671  (4th Cir. Sept. 23 2013), six plaintiffs allege that because their support for the Sheriff’s opponent, the Sheriff retaliated by choosing not the reappoint them. One of the plaintiffs had “liked” the opponent’s Facebook page.

The First Amendment application for a public employee is interesting. In order for a public employee to enjoy First Amendment protection and show that the employer violated the First Amendment, the employee has to show 3 items.

  • (1) the employee was speaking as a citizen upon a matter of public concern rather than an employee about a matter of personal interest;
  • (2) the employee’s interest in speaking upon the matter of public concern outweighed the government’s interest in providing effective and efficient services to the public; and
  • (3) the employee’s speech was a substantial factor in the employer’s termination decision

Furthermore, the degree of the protection depends on whether the political affiliation or political allegiance is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office.  Here, the three deputies were trained as jailers and had never made an arrest.  In other words, their political support for the Sheriff’s opponent may not a requirement for their performance of their duties.  This speech includes a “like” on Facebook.  The 4th Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

via Clicking ‘like’ is protected by First Amendment, 4th Circuit says.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, discrimination, employment, federal

Targeting Union Employees For Layoffs Violates The First Amendment

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals brings an interesting labor decision.  In State Employee Bargaining Coalitation v. Roland, ___F.3d___( 2d Cir. May 31, 2013), the court found that targeting Union employees for layoffs violates the First Amendment (freedom of association).

In this case, the employer employed around 50,000 people.  75% of these employees were members of the Union, and 25% were not.  In December 2002, the employer fired only Union employees.  No non-Union employees were fired.

It is important to note that an employer can manage the size of their work force.  However, the employer cannot target a protected group (here, employees who associated themselves with the Union).  The reason for this is because by targeting a protected group, the effect is to inhibit employees from their freedom to associate.

Under the Constitution, in order for the employer to not violate the Constitution it must show that they used the less restrictive means to accomplish their interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve their goals.

The following are the pivotal facts of this case.  The employer’s interest was to manage their economical situation.  However, the laying off those Union employees had a minimal effect on their budget.  In fact, these Union-only lay offs were not included in the Balanced Budget Plan.  Further, the facts showed that because both Union and non-Union employees had the same health care and pension benefits there was no reason why only the Union employees were targeted.

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: Targeting Union Employees For Layoffs Violates The First Amendment.

2 Comments

Filed under Appellate, civil rights, courts, discrimination, District Court, employment, federal, labor, legal decision, union

ACLU challenges NSA surveillance

On June 11th, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the NSA’s surveillance program.  The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the program violates the First Amendment rights or free speech and association, the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, and that the surveillance program exceeds the authority provided by the Patriot Act.

ACLU, a customer of Verizon, made the following comments:

This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens.

It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation.  The program goes far beyond even the permissible limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy.

The complaint can be accessed here.

via ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone Spying Program | American Civil Liberties Union.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, electronic discovery, federal, Privacy Rights

Admission to the MN Bar changes

On January 17, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed changes to the admission to the Bar.  The amendments that changed the Rules of Admission are:

Definitions:  Rule 2A(12) definition of Uniform Bar Examination.  Under the new amendment, UBE is “an examination prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), comprised of six Multistate Essay Examination questions, two Multistate Performance Test questions, and the Multistate Bar Examination.  See amendments to Rule 7C (Admission by UBE score).

Requirements for Admission:  Rule 4A(4) was amended to state that an eligible applicant must provide satisfactory evidence of a passing score on the written examination under Rule 6 and is not eligible for admission under Rules 7A (Eligibility by Practice), 7B (Eligibility by MBE), 7C (Eligibility by UBE), 8, 9, or 10.

Requirements for Admission:  Rule4B was stricken.  Rule4B previously stated that the applicant had to be a resident of Minnesota or maintain an office in Minnesota or designate the Clerk of Appellate Courts as agent for service of process for all purposes.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions was amended to delete the following subjects:

  1. Civil Procedure (but note that the amendment added a Federal Civil Procedure subject);
  2. Ethics and Professional Responsibility;
  3. Federal Individual Income Taxation;
  4. Uniform Commercial Code Art. 1 &2 (but note that under the Contracts subject, the amendments include the UCC; as well as the new subject of Negotiable Instruments); and
  5. Wills, Estates and Trusts (but note that there is a new subject of Trusts and Estates).

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions added the following subjects:

  1. Conflict of Laws;
  2. Federal Civil Procedure;
  3. Negotiable Instruments (Commercial Paper) under the UCC;
  4. Secured Transactions under the UCC; and
  5. Trusts and Estates.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions further stated what topics where covered under the following subjects:

  1. Business Associations – the subject no longer includes proprietorships;
  2. Contracts – the amendment stated the subject includes contracts under the UCC; and
  3. Trusts and Estates – the subject includes Decedents’ Estates, and Trusts and Future Interests

The Examination: Rule 6E(2) Multistate Performance Test stated there will be two 90-minute questions.  The prior rule stated one or two.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(C) Eligibility by UBE score was added to the ways an applicant may be admitted.  Rule 7A(C) states that the applicant might have received a certified scaled score of 260 or higher.  Rule 7A(C) also states the application must be completed within 36 months of the date of the examination.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(D) Transfer of MBE or UBE score was amended to add UBE.

Confidentiality and Release of Information:  Rule 14C(4) Examination of Data now includes the disclosure of the UBE.  In addition Rule 14C(5) specifies that the director may release copies of unsuccessful examinee’s answers to MEE and MPT questions.

via STATE OF MINNESOTA. (published by Minnesota Lawyer – subscription required).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law Schools, law students, Minnesota, rules