MacRae v. Mattos
106 F.4th 122 (2024)
Rule of Law:
A public employer may terminate an employee for speech made prior to employment if the Garcetti/Pickering balancing test determines that the employer's reasonable prediction of disruption to its operations outweighs the employee's First Amendment interest, especially when the speech is derogatory and publicly accessible.
Facts:
- Kari MacRae created a personal TikTok account under the username 'NanaMacof4' around 2019.
- At different points in 2021, MacRae liked, shared, posted, or reposted six memes on her TikTok account, some of which were insulting or disparaging toward transgender people and touched on issues of racism and immigration.
- In May 2021, MacRae ran for and won a seat on the Bourne School Committee, posting a campaign video on her TikTok account expressing views against teaching critical race theory and gender identity.
- In late August 2021, MacRae interviewed for and was offered a math and business teaching position at Hanover High School, set to start on September 1, 2021.
- On August 25, 2021, the Bourne School Committee received a complaint about MacRae's TikTok posts, leading to a determination that some posts violated core values and public controversy in Bourne.
- On September 17, 2021, the Cape Cod Times published an article discussing MacRae's social media activity and the reactions from the Bourne community.
- By September 20, 2021, Hanover High's principal, Matthew Mattos, and superintendent, Matthew A. Ferron, learned of MacRae's TikTok posts after a Hanover High teacher, Stacey Pereira, brought the article to their attention.
- During an interview on September 24, 2021, MacRae agreed that some students and staff were likely aware of her posts, and she maintained she stood by the views expressed in her posts 'one hundred percent.'
Procedural Posture:
- Kari MacRae filed a lawsuit against Matthew Mattos, Matthew A. Ferron, and Hanover Public Schools in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- MacRae later amended her complaint to assert a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First Amendment retaliation.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing their interest in preventing disruption outweighed MacRae's First Amendment interest, and that Mattos and Ferron were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding the public employee framework applied, no genuine disputes of material fact existed, Defendants' interest outweighed MacRae's, and Mattos and Ferron were entitled to qualified immunity.
- MacRae, as appellant, filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Garcetti/Pickering framework for public employees apply to speech made prior to employment, and if so, can a public school employer's reasonable prediction of significant disruption to the learning environment outweigh a teacher's First Amendment interest in posting derogatory political memes on social media, thereby justifying termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Circuit Judge
Yes, the Garcetti/Pickering framework for public employees applies to speech made prior to employment, and a public school employer's reasonable prediction of significant disruption to the learning environment can outweigh a teacher's First Amendment interest in posting derogatory political memes on social media, thereby justifying termination. The First Circuit first determined that the Garcetti framework, rather than the framework for private individuals, applies even when the speech in question occurred prior to employment. The court reasoned that the alleged retaliatory response (termination) was inextricably linked to MacRae's status as a public employee, and the government's interest in the efficient provision of public services does not disappear simply because the speech was pre-employment. It noted the relatively short time between MacRae's posts and her employment, and that she reaffirmed her views while employed. Applying the second step of the Garcetti framework (Pickering balancing), the court weighed MacRae's First Amendment interest against the Defendants' interest in preventing disruption. While MacRae's speech touched on public concerns, its 'mocking, derogatory, and disparaging manner' reduced its weight. The court found Defendants' prediction of disruption reasonable, citing substantial media coverage, extraordinary evidence of disruption in Bourne (a nearby town), and specific concerns at Hanover High. The court emphasized that a government employer need not show actual adverse effect but can rely on a 'speech's potential to disrupt,' and that a reasonable prediction of disruption is given significant weight. The court found no evidence that Defendants were motivated by personal dislike, but rather a legitimate concern about the posts' potential to disrupt the learning environment. The court concluded that Defendants had an adequate justification for treating MacRae differently, and their interest outweighed hers.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies that the Garcetti/Pickering framework applies to public employees even when the speech at issue occurs prior to employment, particularly when there is a relatively short temporal gap and the employee reaffirms those views. It reinforces the principle that a public employer's reasonable prediction of workplace disruption, especially in a school setting with vulnerable students, can outweigh an employee's First Amendment rights, even for speech on matters of public concern if that speech is derogatory and public. This ruling suggests that individuals seeking public employment, particularly in education, should be mindful of their public social media presence and its potential impact on future employers, extending the reach of Garcetti beyond active employment.
