Matthew Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10767, 330 F.3d 250, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1813 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's protection of free speech does not extend to an employee's expressive conduct within a private employer's workplace. Therefore, a state law prohibiting termination for the exercise of a constitutionally 'guaranteed' right does not protect an employee fired for displaying a controversial symbol on private company property against the employer's wishes.
Facts:
- Matthew Dixon, an employee at Coburg Dairy, Inc., was an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
- Coburg had an anti-harassment policy prohibiting visual conduct such as derogatory posters or drawings.
- During a period of intense public debate in South Carolina about the Confederate flag, Dixon placed two Confederate flag stickers on his personal toolbox, which he used at work in the company garage.
- An African-American co-worker, Leroy Garner, informed Dixon that he found the stickers racially offensive and a violation of Coburg's harassment policy.
- Coburg management asked Dixon to remove the stickers to comply with its policy and offered to buy him a new, unadorned toolbox for work.
- Dixon refused the offer and refused to remove the stickers, asserting it was his constitutional right to display the flag.
- Coburg fired Dixon on the ground that he had violated the company's anti-harassment policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Dixon filed a nine-count complaint against Coburg Dairy, Inc. in a South Carolina state court.
- Coburg removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, citing federal question jurisdiction.
- Dixon filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the district court denied.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted Coburg's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Dixon, as appellant, appealed the denial of remand and the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Coburg as appellee.
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 a private employer violate a state law prohibiting termination for the 'exercise of political rights and privileges guaranteed' by the U.S. Constitution when it fires an employee for refusing to remove Confederate flag stickers from his toolbox in the workplace after a coworker complained?
Opinions:
Majority - Gregory, Circuit Judge
No. The employer's action does not violate the state law because the First Amendment does not guarantee an employee the right to engage in expressive conduct in a private employer's workplace. The South Carolina statute protects only the exercise of rights that are actually 'guaranteed' by the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment protects citizens from government interference with speech, not from the actions of private entities on private property. An individual's right to free speech does not permit them to express themselves 'whenever and however and wherever they please,' and this right does not extend to bringing controversial symbols into a private workplace against the employer's policy. Even if the employer were a state actor, it would have a substantial interest in restricting the speech to preserve a harmonious work environment and avoid potential Title VII liability for racial harassment.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Goodwin, District Judge
This opinion does not answer the issue on the merits, instead arguing the court lacks jurisdiction. The federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the state-law claims do not truly depend on the resolution of a federal question. The concept of 'exercising a First Amendment right' against a private actor is a novel creation of state law that has no content in federal law, which requires state action. Therefore, the South Carolina statute merely uses federal First Amendment principles by analogy rather than incorporating a question of federal law. Furthermore, even if a federal question were present, it is not 'substantial' enough to create federal jurisdiction under the standard set in Merrell Dow, as there is no private federal cause of action and state courts are fully competent to interpret these principles.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the state action doctrine, clarifying that First Amendment protections do not regulate private employers. It establishes that when a state law incorporates a federal constitutional standard, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction to define the limits of that standard, even in a private dispute. The case is significant for employers, as it affirms their ability to enforce anti-harassment policies by restricting employee speech in the workplace, balancing free expression against the legal duty to maintain a non-hostile work environment under federal laws like Title VII.
Unlock the full brief for Matthew Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated