Social media makes it easy for public employees to share opinions—including about their employer. But what if those posts are negative, controversial, or go viral? Can a city take action? It depends.
The First Amendment protects free speech, but not all speech is treated equally—especially for government employees. Two court cases, Garcetti v. Ceballos and Pickering v. Board of Education, offer guidance.
Garcetti: Job-Related Speech Is Not Protected
If an employee speaks as part of their official job duties, their speech is not protected. Cities have more authority to manage this type of communication. If they speak as a private citizen on issues of public concern—like safety, waste, or corruption—their speech may be protected.
Pickering: Balance Rights with Workplace Impact
Even if speech is protected, cities can act if it causes real workplace problems. The court balances:
The employee’s right to speak
The city’s need for a smooth, trustworthy workplace
Courts consider:
What was said: Public concern or just internal drama?
Where/how: Public forum, private post, or city platform?
What impact: Did it hurt trust, coworkers, or operations?
Examples
Protected: Off-duty post about how budget cuts affect city services
Not Protected: Public, profane insult targeting the mayor that disrupts city business
What Cities Should Do
Before responding to a post, ask:
Was the employee speaking as a private citizen?
Was it about a public issue?
Did it cause real disruption?
Also, review your social media policy. It should be clear, specific, and respect employee rights.
Final Thoughts
Free speech matters—but so does workplace function. Use Garcetti and Pickering to guide decisions, follow your policies, and consult legal counsel when needed.
