Hatch Act Archives

Can you criticize your employer on Facebook when you're off duty? A recent National Labor Relations Board complaint suggests that comments made on social networking sites outside of work may well be protected free speech.

A complaint issued by the NLRB's Hartford, Conn., regional office on Oct. 27 alleges that an ambulance service illegally terminated an employee who posted negative remarks about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. The complaint also alleges that the company illegally denied union representation to the employee during an investigatory review and maintained and enforced an overly broad blogging and Internet posting policy.

NLRB noted that when asked by her supervisor to prepare an investigative report concerning a customer complaint about her work, the employee requested and was denied union representation. Later that day from her home computer, the employee posted a negative remark about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page, which drew supportive responses from her co-workers and led to further criticism of the supervisor from the employee. The employee was suspended and later terminated because the postings violated the company's Internet policies.

"An NLRB investigation found that the employee's Facebook postings constituted protected concerted activity, and that the company's blogging and Internet posting policy contained unlawful provisions," the labor board said.

In a statement to Legal Times, the employer in the case -- American Medical Response -- said it strongly disagrees with the allegations and "believes they are without merit."

A hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge is scheduled for Jan. 25, 2011.

What do you think? If you knew such speech was protected, would you still avoid posting negative thoughts about your employer or supervisor online?

It's election time, so that means it has to be Hatch Act time, too.

At least two federal employees are entangled in the nuances of the law, which prohibits federal employees from running in partisan elections. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on Friday that Christopher Newcomb, identified only as a military employee, is running for the Alpine Union school board. From the Tribune:

School-board elections in California, by law, are supposed to be nonpartisan. But the U.S. Office of Special Counsel informed Newcomb in an April letter that if other candidates pick up partisan endorsements, he could be deemed ineligible even though he is running as an independent.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Newcomb, challenging the special counsel's investigation.

In Virginia, the Alexandria Times reported this week town council member Alicia Hughes may be the subject of an inquiry by the special counsel. Hughes works for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Like Newcomb, Hughes is an independent with no partisan endorsements. But as the Times reported:

Hughes ran for City Council as an Independent last year but was backed by factions like the Alexandria Republican City Committee. Her photograph and name appear on the ARCC website under the heading "On Council," below Republican Councilman Frank Fannon and above a photo President Ronald Regan.