Can Employers Regulate Their Employees' Speech?

Published date16 November 2021
Subject MatterEmployment and HR, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations
Law FirmParsons Behle & Latimer
AuthorJameson Rammell

No employer wants to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit'particularly a lawsuit alleging race-based discrimination. But that is precisely where Whole Foods Market, Inc. found itself last year when a group of employees alleged that it discriminated and retaliated against them for wearing Black Lives Matter attire at work.

The employees sued Whole Foods under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits race-based discrimination). Although Whole Foods had a policy that prohibited employees from wearing attire with non-Whole Foods' logos or messaging at work, the plaintiffs claimed that the policy was rarely enforced and that employees had previously worn items with LGBTQ+ messaging, National Rifle Association messaging, and even SpongeBob SquarePants face masks without incident.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts explained that the plaintiffs' Title VII claim was more accurately viewed as "a First Amendment claim that Plaintiffs [were] trying to shoehorn into Title VII." Frith v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 517 F. Supp. 3d 60, 76 n.9 (D. Mass. 2021).

Why did the employees have to try and shoehorn a First Amendment claim into Title VII? As the District Court explained, "...there is no right to free speech in a private workplace." Id. Thus, even if the employees' allegations were true, Whole Foods conduct did not violate its employees' First Amendment rights. The District Court ultimately granted Whole Foods' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' Title VII claim, and concluded that "Whole Foods employees that are not happy with the Policy can find someplace else to work . . . ." Id.

While that result may seem harsh to some, it serves as a useful reminder that the First Amendment only protects speech from government censorship. It does not apply to private sector employers, and "an employee does not have a cause of action against a private sector employer who terminates the employee because of the exercise of the employee's constitutional right of free speech." Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Prods., 75 P.3d 733, 739 (2003).

That said, some states impose specific limitations on employers' abilities to restrict employees' speech. For example, Utah Code ' 34A-5-112(2) states: "An employer may not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT