Justices OK PennDOT Employee's Firing Over Posting on Facebook That She'd 'Gladly Smash Into a School Bus'
"Clearly, few statements could be more contrary to the department's mission of providing safe roadways for the traveling public than Carr's comment, 'I don't give a flying shit about those babies and I will gladly smash into a school bus,'" Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy wrote for the court.
May 21, 2020 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation employee was rightly terminated for complaining on Facebook about the school bus drivers in her area and writing that she "will gladly smash into a school bus."
The justices unanimously ruled May 19 to overturn a Commonwealth Court decision that reversed a State Civil Service Commission adjudication and order dismissing plaintiff Rachel Carr's challenge to her termination.
In June 2018, a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court unanimously ordered that Carr be reinstated to her position. The panel said Carr's Facebook comments were protected by the First Amendment because she was speaking about a matter of public concern and there was no evidence that the comments would cause tangible harm to PennDOT.
According to the Commonwealth Court's opinion, Carr was fired after posting the following to a Facebook group called "Creeps of Peeps": "Rant: can we acknowledge the horrible school bus drivers? I'm in PA almost on the NY boarder [sic] bear [sic] Erie and they are hella scary. Daily I get ran off the berm of our completely wide enough road and today one asked me to t-bone it. I end this rant saying I don't give a flying shit about those babies and I will gladly smash into a school bus."
Employing the free-speech analysis established by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County, Illinois, the Commonwealth Court found that Carr spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern in her Facebook comments.
In addition, pursuant to the state Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in Sacks v. Department of Public Welfare, the Commonwealth Court found Carr's interest in engaging in protected speech outweighed PennDOT's countervailing interests in maintaining the public's trust.
But the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, disagreed with the lower court on both issues, noting that Sacks and Pickering "both involved employees who by virtue of their positions and experience had specialized knowledge regarding matters of public concern."
Carr, however, did not fit that description, Mundy said, because her position with PennDOT "did not provide her with special knowledge regarding a matter of public concern, in this case, school bus safety."
With regard to the Pickering analysis, Mundy said that "while there is no present dispute whether Carr's comments touched on a matter of public concern, they were essentially a rant based on her personal observation of a particular bus driver rather than an explanation of safety concerns that she became aware of as a department employee."
With regard to the analysis under Sacks, Mundy said PennDOT acted reasonably in terminating Carr because her comments on Facebook could have eroded the public's trust in the core mission of the agency: safety.
"Clearly, few statements could be more contrary to the department's mission of providing safe roadways for the traveling public than Carr's comment, 'I don't give a flying shit about those babies and I will gladly smash into a school bus,'" Mundy said. "Furthermore, the fact that the department received complaints via social media about Carr's posts highlights the reasonableness of its concerns regarding the loss of public trust."
Mundy was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justices Max Baer, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy and David Wecht.
Wecht penned a concurring opinion, noting that the lower court "ignored the context of the statements and method of communication, both of which reveal that Carr was not speaking on a matter of public concern, but merely venting her personal frustration."
"The court overgeneralized Carr's expressions of personal frustration to find a matter of public concern," Wecht said. "The problem with this approach is that almost any statement can be connected to a matter of public concern if viewed broadly enough."
A spokesperson for PennDOT said in an email, "PennDOT is pleased with the court's decision, which underscores the department's commitment to its highway safety mission."
Counsel for Carr, Kyle Milliron of Duke Center, did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250