Political Speech in the Workplace: What Employers, Employees Should Know
Employees might engage coworkers in political debate, and some might even try to campaign in the workplace. It is useful for employers to understand how the law treats political speech in the workplace and implement policy accordingly.
October 08, 2020 at 01:19 PM
5 minute read
"Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." —Sir Winston Churchill
Today, unlike any other time in history, American citizens are voicing their political views loudly and in a variety of different forms from traditional speech to social media posts. The political temperature in the United States is high, and with the rise in local, state, and national protests related to COVID-19, Black Lives Matter, women's rights, and other issues, along with the fact that we are weeks away from the most contested and emotionally charged presidential election this country has ever seen, preparing for the likelihood that political discussions will spill into the workplace is recommended. Employees might engage coworkers in political debate, and some might even try to campaign in the workplace. It is useful for employers to understand how the law treats political speech in the workplace and implement policy accordingly.
- Politics in the Workplace Can Create a Negative Environment and Impact Productivity
A Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) poll (www.shrm.org/today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys) conducted last year found that 42% of employees polled have had a "political disagreement at work" and 12% have experienced political affiliation bias. Of those surveyed, 56% stated that political discussions in the office have become more common in the past four years. A 2016 study by the American Psychological Association found that political discussion in the workplace resulted in increased stress, isolation, and hostility. Not surprisingly, there is great potential that political discussions will lead to disagreements that could invite inflammatory comments or negative treatment. In turn, these actions could lead to claims of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation. For example, an employee could allege that a supervisor has a discriminatory bias (gender, religion, age, disability) and use the inflammatory comments to support the claim. There is little question that politics in the workplace can diminish workplace productivity and work quality, and can also expose employers to liability.
- Freedom of Speech
It is a commonly held misconception that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech at work. The First Amendment only applies to government action and does not limit the right of private employers to regulate employee communication in the workplace. Accordingly, with some noted exceptions that will be discussed in this article, employees do not have a general right to free speech in a private employer's workplace. This means that private employers have the right to limit or even prohibit political speech in the workplace. This includes all types of speech including, but not limited to conversations, emails, political buttons, shirts, posters, photographs, etc.
- Workplace Policy Dos and Don'ts
Given that private employers have the ability to limit or prohibit political speech in the workplace, employers can have a policy that clearly sets forth the rules regarding political speech and the discipline that can result from a rule violation. Of course, it is advisable for employers to train their employees that the policy is understood. However, a "no free speech or political activity in the workplace policy" must be narrowly tailored so that it does not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or any state or local law that protects speech in the workplace. The NLRA restricts an employer's right to limit workers' communications about wages, hours, and terms or conditions of employment during nonwork time in nonwork areas. These restrictions apply to union and non-union employers. Thus, "protected concerted activities" must be excluded from a policy that limits or prohibits political speech in the workplace. Also, the laws in some states provide some free speech or political activity protections. For example, Pennsylvania has a common law public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Some Pennsylvania courts have held that freedom of political expression, even for private employers, is an important public policy and that employers cannot take tangible employment action against an employee based solely upon the expression of a political opinion. Accordingly, employers, especially those in multiple jurisdictions, should verify that their political speech policy does not violate any law or precedent.
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
© 2025 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 AllThe Importance of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Its Impact on Privilege
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Consumer Protection Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Irritating Eye Serum
- 2COVID-19 Was Still Relevant in Securities Class Actions During 2024, Report Says
- 3After Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
- 4DOT Moves to Roll Back Emissions Rules, Eliminate DEI Programs
- 5No Injury: Despite Proven Claims, Antitrust Suit Fails
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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