First Amendment issue?

[Sindawe]

(CBS4) DENVER Arapahoe County is threatening to fire a veteran Public Works employee for promoting the fact that he is an English speaking American.

"They claim it's offensive and I've been accused of discrimination and harassment, believe it or not, because of this," said Mike Gray, a heavy equipment operator with the Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Department for 16 years.

The problems began last spring. Gray, 50, owns a lawn service business on the side. He was routinely driving to work in his pickup truck towing a trailer that he uses to carry lawn mowing equipment for his business. On the side of his trailer, the married father of two affixed a sign that reads "Lawn Services Done With Pride!! By An English Speaking American."

The sign also gives Gray's phone number and the lettering is over a background of an American flag.

"There are a lot of people in the lawn service that are non-English speaking," Gray said. "Customers and different people were telling me that they have a hard time trying to communicate with them about the work they want done on their yards. I just want to let people know they at least can communicate with me when I do work on their property."

Gray also wore a hat to work that says "U.S. Border Patrol," which he says was a gift from his son.

Arapahoe County officials told Gray the sign and hat must go or else. In a Nov. 10, 2005, letter, his supervisor Monty Sedlak wrote the following:

"Some of your conduct ... is reprehensible and discriminatory to our non-English speaking and/or Hispanic workforce. You are in violation of ... guidelines which ensure a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of employees."

"You are required to permanently remove your cap from the workplace. It is offensive and harassing. Your business sign, if on work premises, must be completely covered at all times. This behavior is inappropriate and any further incidents of this nature may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." This sounds like infringement of free speech by a government agency to me. -Sin

Andrea Rasizer, spokesperson for Arapahoe County, declined to answer questions, saying the matter was a "personnel issue."

Gray said he believes his First Amendment rights are at stake, and he said he is "not about to surrender."

"I got a new supervisor," said Gray. "He's a politically correct, bleeding heart liberal. I believe in what I'm doing. I got to stand up for what I believe in and I don't think I'm doing a thing wrong. Of course I don't want to lose my job, but I can't back down from something I believe in. Like I say, they're just chipping away at our rights and freedoms."

In response to the County's firing threat, Gray stopped wearing his Border Patrol hat to work and partly covers his business sign at work so that the American flag and the words "English speaking American" are the only things still visible.

The County says that's not enough, but it's as far as Gray is willing to go.

"Why would any American do such a thing as cover up the American flag and something that says you're an American? Its beyond me that anyone could expect me to do that like my employer is."

Gray has hired attorney David Lane, who plans to file an injunction to allow the County worker to resume wearing his hat on the job and fully display his sign.

"What is of concern to me is whether the government of Arapahoe County is violating his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment," Lane said. "When the government tries to put a gag in people's mouths because they don't like the message that's being delivered, I'd do everything in my power to stop that from happening."

Source: http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_061125200.html

Pity he's not a larger operation, I'm weary of having the non-english speaking buffoons my HOA hires spraying my garden with herbicides after being repeatedly instructed not too.

 

[ryanjones]

*Smarta$$ mode* How can a sign in english offend the non-english speaking staff?!?!?!
*Smarta$$ mode off*

I think this is very much a case of first amendment rights. The workers sign is not harashing anyone, nor is it spreading a hateful message, its merely stating a fact about the guy and his lawn service company. As for the border patrol hat...it shouldn't matter to anyone because all the workers should be allowed to work legally in the United States not matter if they are an immigrant or a citizen. The other way I could see this going is if the city tries to claim that the worker is trying to spread a political message which his sign and hat. Then they could argue a point if they have something in their rules about such things.

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, I suppose the little "bilingual" badges that our cops wear here in San Diego if they can speak another language are somehow offensive, too?

What about the advertisements on city buses for scheister lawyers or used car dealerships that read "Se Habla Español"?

Would it be offensive to advertise a deli as "owned by a Yiddish-speaking Brooklyn Jew for over 25 years, so I can put my ungrateful kids through college, oi vey!"?

It's true: a lot of people in the landscaping and gardening business can't communicate in English, with results that can range from disastrous to hilarious. A lot of people don't mind, but some people might be willing to pay a good deal more to someone who will understand what they want and do the job right the first time.

I hope he wins.

 

[BrokenPaw]

This is not a first-amendment case. This is about an employer telling an employee what is and what is not acceptable on the employer's premises. As a citizen, Mr. Gray has the right to wear his hat and drive his truck, signs and all, to the Public Works offices if he wants to. As an employee, he's required to conform to the standards of conduct and dress defined by his employer. If he chooses not to do so, he can find a job elsewhere.

He does not have a guaranteed "right" to a job with the department of Public Works. But as long as he has that job, he's bound by their code of conduct.

Just because PW is a government entity does not mean that it cannot establish and enforce codes of conduct and dress on its employees, as a condition of continued employment.

As an aside, I'm surprised that they're not upset about him advertizing how other business while on their clock. I imagine that my employer would take issue if I advertized a side business while I was on the premises here. In fact, it's noted in my Employee Handbook that I can't do that.

-BP

 

[ArmedBear]

As an aside, I'm surprised that they're not upset about him advertizing how other business while on their clock. I imagine that my employer would take issue if I advertized a side business while I was on the premises here. In fact, it's noted in my Employee Handbook that I can't do that.

That's true, but it's a separate issue. If they had a problem with the advertisement in general, that would not be a free speech issue.

 

[BrokenPaw]

That's true, but it's a separate issue. If they had a problem with the advertisement in general, that would not be a free speech issue.

No, it's precisely the same issue: whether or not an employer has the right to regulate the appearance and conduct of their employees. If employers have the right to set standards for what employees can and cannot say or do while acting on behalf of, or on the premises of, the employer, then this is not a free-speech issue. It's an issue of a guy who doesn't understand that he can say what he likes, but what he says can have consequences, and those consequences may include termination.

Nowhere in the article did I read anything that said that the department of Public Works was trying to make him take the sign off his trailer, just that they wanted it covered when he was on their premises as an employee. Likewise, they didn't say he couldn't have his hat, they just said he couldn't have it on their premises while he was in their employ.

This is just as much a non-issue as the outrage that we hear from radio hosts who claim their First-Amendment Rights are being curtailed by employers who put limits on them.

When you are on the clock, you're not representing yourself; you're representing your employer. If you do or say something, while representing your employer, that your employer doesn't like, that's your right as a free American. And it's your employer's right to terminate you for failing to represent them in a way they find acceptable.

Tempest. Teapot.

-BP

 

[ArmedBear]

Yeah, you're right. When I re-read the story, it sounds like he's not allowed to advertise and he's turning it into something else.

His boss may be a real idiot, but he still isn't allowed to advertise.

And the BP hat is stupid; if someone works for the government and wears a part of a uniform of another government agency, he'll probably be told to take it off, no matter what it is.

 

[MechAg94]

Actually, this is not just about advertising. If so, the complaint letter would simply say to cover it up. What it said was that his hat was offensive and discriminatory. I agree they have every right to make him cover his sign, but the part about the hat doesn't sound right. If they allow employees to wear personal hats, then how can they now complain? I think the employer/boss was stupid to mix those two issues in the complaint.

Questions:
Do other cars or trailers in the parking lot have signs or decals advertising services apart from public works? Were they told to stop also? I have seen a lot of people with web site window stickers and such.

Do they allow non-official hats to be worn at work? Does the dress code address this issue. What kind of hats are other employees wearing? What is particularly bad about a Border Patrol hat? If another employer is wearing a Broncos hat, what is the difference?

Main point is that the employer cannot be selective in applying the rules. If they are, then that guy does have valid beef.

 

[TX1911fan]

BrokenPaw, I think you are correct to an extent. An employer, even a government employer, should have the right to regulate employee conduct and appearance. However, the supervisor, by making this a political, rather than a standards, issue screwed up. By making it about the message, rather than whether it is permissible at all, the supervisor has brought in the 1st Amendment. A government entity, regardless of whether they are an employer or not, cannot prohibit protected speech. It sounds to me that if the guy's sign had said "se habla espanol" the supervisor would have been just fine with that, so the supervisor was not objecting to the conduct, but rather to the content of the message. That is a per se violation of the 1st Amendment, and is not permissible. I think this guy has a pretty good case. What will happen, however, is the county will get smart and just prohibit all advertising for other businesses, and that will mostly take care of the problem. However, if I work for the government and want to put an American flag and the fact that I am English speaking on my truck and then drive that truck to work, it will be very hard for my employer to prohibit it. Sounds to me that the county wants to do just that to this guy.