Wearing ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ insignia could be punishable racial harassment
By Eugene Volokh August 3 at 5:26 PM
![Wearing ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ insignia could be punishable racial harassment Gadsdenflag](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/07/Outlook/Images/gadsdenflag.jpg&w=1484)
undefined
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among its other functions, decides “hostile work environment” harassment claims brought against federal agencies. In doing so, it applies the same legal rules that courts apply to private employers, and that the EEOC follows in deciding whether to sue private employers. The EEOC has already ruled that coworkers’ wearing Confederate flag T-shirts can be punishable harassment (a decision that I think is incorrect); and, unsurprisingly, this is extending to other political speech as well. Here’s an excerpt from Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan, 2016 WL 3361228, decided by the EEOC two months ago:
A few thoughts:
1. Recall that this is not a case about when private employers may restrict what their employees wear on the job, or even about when government employers may do so. Private employers have very broad power on this, because they aren’t bound by the First Amendment (though statutes in some states may constrain employers’ power to some extent). Government employers also have fairly broad power to restrict their employees’ on-the-job speech and behavior.
Instead, this is a case about the rules that all employers, public or private, must follow, on pain of massive legal liability. The harassment law rules (which, as I noted, are the same for private employers as for the federal government) are imposed by the government acting as sovereign — the area where the First Amendment should provide the most protection — not just the government acting as employer.
2. Nothing in the opinion suggests that the cap wearer said anything racist to Shelton D.; I’ve read many such EEOC decisions, and they generally list all the significant allegations of harassment. (I can’t access the specific complaint in the case, because all that information is kept secret in EEOC proceedings.) Shelton D.’s objection was apparently just to the wearing of the flag, and the ideology that he thinks has become associated with the flag. And the claim that the EEOC is allowing to go forward is simply that the cap, in some social or workplace “context” would be reasonably seen as conveying a racially offensive message.
3. Let’s think about how this plays out in the workplace. Imagine that you are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.” An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially insensitive.”
Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you may do as a matter of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the question is whether the government is pressuring you to suppress speech that conveys certain viewpoints.)
4. Now let’s get to the 2016 election campaign. Say someone wears “Trump/Pence 2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on his car in the work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle wall, or just says on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t say any racial or religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t even express any anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such views, I think, should be protected by the First Amendment against the threat of government-imposed liability).
But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message “tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously “insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech? (As before, the question isn’t whether you’d be inclined to do that yourself, whether from opposition to Trump, or a desire to avoid controversy that might harm morale; because the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private employers, private Internet service providers, private churches, private universities, private landlords, or others, they are not constitutionally constrained from restricting speech. The question is whether you would feel pressured by the government to impose such restrictions, through the threat of being forced to pay money in a civil lawsuit if you don’t impose them — and whether the government should be able to pressure such private organizations or individuals to restrict speech this way.)
“There is a place for political discussion in our country, but it shouldn’t be the workplace. Accordingly, you may want to consider adopting policies that prohibit political discussions and expression in your workplace, consistent with the applicable state and federal requirements.” So writes one employment lawyer, in the Virginia Employment Law Letter. Other employment law experts have likewise urged employers to broadly restrict speech, including speech about presidential politics (that happened with regard to talk about the Clinton/Lewinsky matter).
And while the Virginia Employment Letter proposal would at least be a viewpoint-neutral restriction (though a very broad one), employers are in practice more likely to come down on speech that expresses viewpoints that might trigger harassment claims — such as calls to elect candidates who want to build a wall on the Mexican border, or limit immigration from Muslim countries — than on speech that expresses contrary viewpoints. Workplace harassment law has become a content-based, viewpoint-based speech restriction, including on core political speech. A pretty serious First Amendment problem, I think, for reasons I discuss in more detail here.
By Eugene Volokh August 3 at 5:26 PM
![Wearing ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ insignia could be punishable racial harassment Gadsdenflag](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/07/Outlook/Images/gadsdenflag.jpg&w=1484)
undefined
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among its other functions, decides “hostile work environment” harassment claims brought against federal agencies. In doing so, it applies the same legal rules that courts apply to private employers, and that the EEOC follows in deciding whether to sue private employers. The EEOC has already ruled that coworkers’ wearing Confederate flag T-shirts can be punishable harassment (a decision that I think is incorrect); and, unsurprisingly, this is extending to other political speech as well. Here’s an excerpt from Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan, 2016 WL 3361228, decided by the EEOC two months ago:
On January 8, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which he alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of race (African American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, starting in the fall of 2013, a coworker (C1) repeatedly wore a cap to work with an insignia of the Gadsden Flag, which depicts a coiled rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me.”
Complainant stated that he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.” Complainant also alleged that he complained about the cap to management; however, although management assured him C1 would be told not to wear the cap, C1 continued to come to work wearing the offensive cap. Additionally, Complainant alleged that on September 2, 2013, a coworker took a picture of him on the work room floor without his consent. In a decision dated January 29, 2014, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the basis it failed to state a claim . . . .
Complainant maintains that the Gadsden Flag is a “historical indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea Party.” He notes that the Vice President of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters cited the Gadsden Flag as the equivalent of the Confederate Battle Flag when he successfully had it removed from a New Haven, Connecticut fire department flagpole.
After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military.
However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts. For example, in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree. [Footnote: Shooters in Metro ambush that left five dead spoke of white supremacy and a desire to kill police, Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 8, 2014, available online at: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/shooters-metro-ambush-left-five-dead-spoke-white-supremacy-and-desire-kill-police.] Additionally, in 2014, African-American New Haven firefighters complained about the presence of the Gadsden flag in the workplace on the basis that the symbol was racially insensitive. [Paul Bass, Flag Sparks Fire Department Complaint, New Haven Independent, Feb. 25, 2014, available online at:http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/tea_party_fire_department/.] Certainly, Complainant ascribes racial connotations to the symbol based on observations that it is sometimes displayed in racially-tinged situations.
In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which C1 displayed the symbol in the workplace. In so finding, we are not prejudging the merits of Complainant’s complaint. Instead, we are precluding a procedural dismissal that would deprive us of evidence that would illuminate the meaning conveyed by C1’s display of the symbol.
A few thoughts:
1. Recall that this is not a case about when private employers may restrict what their employees wear on the job, or even about when government employers may do so. Private employers have very broad power on this, because they aren’t bound by the First Amendment (though statutes in some states may constrain employers’ power to some extent). Government employers also have fairly broad power to restrict their employees’ on-the-job speech and behavior.
Instead, this is a case about the rules that all employers, public or private, must follow, on pain of massive legal liability. The harassment law rules (which, as I noted, are the same for private employers as for the federal government) are imposed by the government acting as sovereign — the area where the First Amendment should provide the most protection — not just the government acting as employer.
2. Nothing in the opinion suggests that the cap wearer said anything racist to Shelton D.; I’ve read many such EEOC decisions, and they generally list all the significant allegations of harassment. (I can’t access the specific complaint in the case, because all that information is kept secret in EEOC proceedings.) Shelton D.’s objection was apparently just to the wearing of the flag, and the ideology that he thinks has become associated with the flag. And the claim that the EEOC is allowing to go forward is simply that the cap, in some social or workplace “context” would be reasonably seen as conveying a racially offensive message.
3. Let’s think about how this plays out in the workplace. Imagine that you are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.” An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially insensitive.”
Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you may do as a matter of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the question is whether the government is pressuring you to suppress speech that conveys certain viewpoints.)
4. Now let’s get to the 2016 election campaign. Say someone wears “Trump/Pence 2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on his car in the work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle wall, or just says on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t say any racial or religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t even express any anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such views, I think, should be protected by the First Amendment against the threat of government-imposed liability).
But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message “tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously “insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech? (As before, the question isn’t whether you’d be inclined to do that yourself, whether from opposition to Trump, or a desire to avoid controversy that might harm morale; because the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private employers, private Internet service providers, private churches, private universities, private landlords, or others, they are not constitutionally constrained from restricting speech. The question is whether you would feel pressured by the government to impose such restrictions, through the threat of being forced to pay money in a civil lawsuit if you don’t impose them — and whether the government should be able to pressure such private organizations or individuals to restrict speech this way.)
“There is a place for political discussion in our country, but it shouldn’t be the workplace. Accordingly, you may want to consider adopting policies that prohibit political discussions and expression in your workplace, consistent with the applicable state and federal requirements.” So writes one employment lawyer, in the Virginia Employment Law Letter. Other employment law experts have likewise urged employers to broadly restrict speech, including speech about presidential politics (that happened with regard to talk about the Clinton/Lewinsky matter).
And while the Virginia Employment Letter proposal would at least be a viewpoint-neutral restriction (though a very broad one), employers are in practice more likely to come down on speech that expresses viewpoints that might trigger harassment claims — such as calls to elect candidates who want to build a wall on the Mexican border, or limit immigration from Muslim countries — than on speech that expresses contrary viewpoints. Workplace harassment law has become a content-based, viewpoint-based speech restriction, including on core political speech. A pretty serious First Amendment problem, I think, for reasons I discuss in more detail here.
» Parliamentary Oil Committee reveals details of the Oil and Gas Law and the reason for not legislatin
» Oil and Gas Law.. The Unsolvable Knot
» Abdul Latif attacks Jordan and rejects the Basra-Aqaba pipeline project
» Revealing an agreement for 3 scenarios to decide the position of the Speaker of Parliament
» Parliamentarian reveals reasons for suspending the oil and gas law
» Integrity Commission calls for removing encroachment on 26 properties belonging to the General Compa
» Despite its economic importance, cotton cultivation is suffering in Iraq: Will it disappear?
» Government confirmation: "Ur Gate" contributed to reducing the phenomenon of corruption
» Allocating one trillion dinars for it.. Al-Sudani issues a directive regarding Diwaniya service proj
» Disclosure of the latest developments in the Baghdad Metro project
» Parliamentary Integrity points out observations on the work of some ministers: Pressures brought abo
» Central Bank of Iraq sales exceed one billion dollars in a week
» Parliamentary Oil Committee reveals details of the Oil and Gas Law and the reason for not legislatin
» Electronically.. Trade launches supply operations in Muthanna
» Record number of dollar sales by the Central Bank in a week
» Al-Sudani's advisor: Iraq is in the process of paying off long-term development loans to the World B
» Parliamentary Oil Committee calls for speeding up the legislation of the Oil and Gas Law
» MM&C 7/4/24 Tabaqchali: An Unfolding Structural Economic Transformation in Iraq
» utube 7/4/24 MM&C IQD Updates - Iraqi Dinar - Relations w / Baghdad & Kurdistan - Good - Financial
» Significant decline in oil derivatives exports to Jordan
» MP calls for expulsion of Turkish forces from Iraq
» Al-Salami reveals collecting parliamentary signatures to amend Article 57
» Unveiling a strategic line that supplies electricity to 6 cities in western Nineveh
» Al-Shammari arrives in Karbala to review the mechanism for implementing the Muharram plan
» MP sets timing for deciding on House of Representatives presidency
» Al-Zayer on the deterioration of electricity: failed companies and corrupt contractors
» Iraq ranks 61st globally and 7th in the Arab world among the safest countries in the world
» Will the exchange rate reach 1600 dinars?
» Iraq's lungs are suffering.. Gaseous pollutants increase the incidence of cancer in Basra
» Government plan to raise gasoline production to 35 million liters per day
» Parliamentary Committee announces the establishment of the first water management council.. What wil
» US messages to Iraqi leaders: Dollar cash flow may stop
» Al-Mandlawi: Iraq is keen to involve Polish companies in investment opportunities
» The Iraqi Private Sector and Improving the Investment Environment in the National Development Plan 2
» Dollar exchange rates in local markets.. Learn about them
» How much is Iraq's loan from the IMF?
» Barzani in Baghdad to end Erbil's problems with the center
» Basra pursues land contract fraud
» PM to Barzani: We have made significant progress in building trust
» Baghdad Council threatens to confiscate illegal generators
» Iraqi Creatives Museums and Cultural Centers
» Oil: Gas investment reached 62%
» Barzani in Baghdad
» Private universities and the labor market
» Experts expect the money supply to invest in stocks
» Stock market trading exceeds 281 billion shares
» Extensive government measures to curb the “madness” of housing unit prices
» World Bank: Iraq is among the middle-income countries
» Experts praise agricultural policies and call for supporting farmers
» In response to an appeal via "Baghdad Today", Al-Badran adopts adding a district to the project plan
» The Central Bank in Erbil debunks fears and speculations about the localization of salaries in the r
» Iraqi innovation turns plastic waste into electricity fuel
» Withdrawing advances "without the employees' knowledge".. Maysan Education threatens Rafidain Bank
» Iraq begins establishing first water management council
» Drought in Kurdistan reaches 'dangerous' stages, residents overuse groundwater
» Due to the "assessment exam", a minister fails the final exams at a private university
» Al-Samarrai appreciates the efforts of the Fiqh Council: Its moderate discourse completes the consti
» Al-Sudani expresses to Starmer his aspiration for the continuation of bilateral relations between Ir
» The Central Bank explains the mechanism for travelers to obtain dollars
» Will Iraq witness a new displacement?
» Holiday in the region on the occasion of the first of Muharram
» Al-Hakim warns of new targeting of Iraq and directs an invitation to the government regarding electr
» Sudanese to new British PM: Support international peace
» The President of the Republic congratulates the new Iranian President
» Find out the dollar exchange rate in local markets
» MP: Parliament did not perform its supervisory role over the executive authority
» Development Road.. Formation of a government committee for this file
» MM&C 7/4/24 Official: Iraq's accession to the World Trade Organization is imminent
» utube 7/2/24 MM&C IQD Update Part 2 - Iraqi Dinar - Automation for Revenues - Singapore Agreement
» utube 7/2/24 MM&C part 1 Iraqi DinarPart 1 - IQD Update - Progession of Intergr
» Slight increase in inflation rate for last May
» The President of the Republic stresses the importance of expanding the horizons of cooperation and a
» Border outlets announce the completion of the first phase of network connectivity by 100 percent
» Transparency: Sulaymaniyah and Halabja imports during the past week amounted to more than 17 billion
» MM&C 7/2/24 The dollar in the parallel market.. Al-Sudani’s advisor presents a different vision and
» Between Development and Silk... American-Chinese Conflict on the Iraqi Arena
» In the oil fields...gas flaring rates in Iraq are decreasing
» Iraq's North Oil Company production rises to about 400,000 barrels per day
» Al-Sudani: Iraq is witnessing the highest growth rate in the region
» In numbers.. Numbers of those covered by health insurance in its first and second phases
» Planning: Alternatives to slums will be found based on population census.
» Parliamentary Committee to Al-Eqtisad News: The Oil and Gas Law is Almost Complete, and This is What
» Central Bank: Delivery of dollars to travelers will be exclusively through company and bank outlets
» Electricity announces the operation of the (400 kv) line and the Al-Faw secondary station to relieve
» Government source announces the amount of debts collected for the benefit of the Trade Bank of Iraq
» To stop greed and exploitation.. the work of private generators on the parliament's table
» An "important" reason reduces citizens' interest in buying northern cars
» Water Resources: Water storage has tripled
» Daily.. North Oil Company's production increases to about 400 thousand barrels
» Parliamentary Electricity Committee prepares for "a series of hostings".. What is the reason for gen
» In response to an appeal via "Baghdad Today", Al-Badran adopts adding a district to the project plan
» Sweden takes action after three of its citizens sentenced to death in Iraq
» Iraq prepares to declare itself pollution-free
» Parliamentary Finance: The Staff Law will be passed in the next legislative session
» Iran looks with interest at President Barzani's visit to Baghdad, Turkey supports resolving Iraqi co
» Marwan Ahmed: 75,000 employees in Erbil will receive their salaries this month via (My Account)
» Parliamentary Services Reveals the “Optimal Solution” to Control Real Estate Prices
» President Barzani and Maliki discuss mechanisms for cooperation with the parties of the framework an