Reading the case of Maxwell v. Mesquite ISD we never do learn exactly what Mr. Maxwell posted on social media. And that’s one of the main reasons his First Amendment case fell flat.  The district terminated Mr. Maxwell’s employment as an instructional aide after he posted things on social media that the district deemed to be racist and inappropriate. Relying on its policy regarding use of social media, district administrators terminated the at-will employee. 

School employees have First Amendment protection when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern.  They should suffer no retaliation as a result of exercising those constitutional rights. That’s what Mr. Maxwell said he was doing, and he acknowledged that his posts “dealt with race.” 

Social media posts addressing racial issues certainly could be constitutionally protected, but a lot depends on exactly what is said.   Mr. Maxwell’s lawyers did not introduce the social media posts into the record. So the court was left with what it characterized as conclusions rather than facts.

Compare:  “My social media posts addressed racial issues and were matters of public concern.”

With this: “Here’s what I put on social media:  …….

The first is a conclusion. The second is a statement of fact.  To sustain his suit, Mr. Maxwell had to allege facts that showed that he was speaking on matters of public concern.  Since that didn’t happen, the court dismissed the case.

It was decided by the federal court for the Northern District of Texas on September 19, 2021. We found it at 2021 WL 4260756.

DAWG BONE:  WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS SPEAKING ON “MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN” IS ALWAYS A FACTUAL ISSUE THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE SPECIFICS.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.