Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion affirms a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of state corrections officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a terminated deputy warden. The court applied the Pickering balancing test to conclude that the employer's interest in maintaining security, discipline, and public confidence outweighed the employee's First Amendment rights regarding his controversial social media posts. The court also rejected the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, finding he received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination. Consequently, the court found no need to address the qualified immunity defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Department's termination of Schneiter for his Facebook posts violated the First Amendment under the public-employee speech and Pickering balancing framework.
- Whether the Department violated due process by disciplining Schneiter without a specific policy addressing employees' social-media use.
- Whether the Department's generic work rules were unconstitutionally vague as applied to Schneiter's off-duty social-media activity.
- Whether alleged bias in the disciplinary process violated due process.
Holdings
- The termination did not violate the First Amendment because the Department's interests in maintaining security, order, discipline, nondiscriminatory working relationships, and public confidence in correctional facilities outweighed Schneiter's interest in posting the offensive memes.
- Due process did not require the Department to adopt a specific social-media policy before disciplining Schneiter for posts that could interfere with his duties, and the Department's general work rules provided constitutionally adequate notice.
- Schneiter received constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before termination.
- Schneiter failed to establish a due-process violation based on alleged bias in the disciplinary proceedings.
Key quotations
“Under these circumstances, the Department’s interests in maintaining order, safety, and discipline in its correctional facilities outweigh Schneiter’s interest in posting these memes on social media.” (at 21)
“At bottom, Schneiter seems to argue that a public employer must promulgate a specific policy about employee social-media activity before it may discipline an employee for his social-media posts. The Constitution does not require that degree of specificity.” (at 22)
Factual background
Richard Schneiter worked for Wisconsin's Department of Corrections for more than forty years and served as deputy warden of a system encompassing fourteen minimum-security correctional facilities. During several weeks in June 2019, he posted or shared five offensive Facebook memes denigrating Muslims, Black people, liberals, and LGBTQ people; his private Facebook page had approximately 1,200 friends, including Department employees. After the posts became public, the Department investigated, conducted interviews and predisciplinary proceedings, and terminated Schneiter, citing work-rule violations, security and safety concerns, diminished public trust, and doubts about his ability to lead and treat employees and inmates fairly. Schneiter received notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond with a representative, and multiple levels of administrative review before termination.
Procedural history
Schneiter, a deputy warden in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, was terminated after the Department investigated offensive Facebook posts. He pursued Wisconsin administrative and judicial remedies without success, then filed a federal action seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The Western District of Wisconsin granted defendants summary judgment on all claims. On appeal, Schneiter withdrew his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and proceeded only on his damages claims.