In a post, just a couple of days ago, we introduced two powerful rulings from the Eighth Circuit, Melton and Naylor, that reaffirmed First Amendment protections for public employees. Today, we’re taking a deeper look at the Naylor case because it offers a critical lesson for local government leaders: just because speech is controversial does not mean it is a fireable offense.
The Backstory: The Case of the Religious Jail Administrator
Dean Naylor served as the Muscatine County jail administrator for a decade. He was a well-respected employee, but his world turned upside down after he shared a religious-themed commentary online that generated significant public outcry. The county, facing a “firestorm” of public complaints, fired Naylor. Their rationale was simple: the online post had caused a public-relations problem, and the firing was necessary to restore public trust.
The court, however, saw things differently. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the government had failed to meet the high legal standard required to justify its decision. The county’s claim that the speech “disrupted the workplace” was not supported by any specific, tangible evidence. Instead, the firing appeared to be a reaction to public opinion and political pressure.
This ruling underscores a fundamental truth about public-employee speech: the Pickering balancing test is not about popularity. It’s about whether the employee’s speech genuinely, measurably, and substantially impairs the government’s ability to operate efficiently.
1. Imagine: Redefine “Disruption”
The Naylor ruling clarifies that a public outcry or a “firestorm” is not, on its own, a legitimate basis for termination. To legally justify discipline, you must be able to demonstrate a concrete, tangible disruption.
-
Bad Evidence: “Citizens were angry.” “We received a lot of complaints.” “It made us look bad.”
-
Good Evidence: “Two co-workers refused to work with the employee after the post.” “Supervisors spent 30+ hours on the phone with clients, resulting in lost productivity.” “The employee’s specific job functions—like coordinating with community leaders—were demonstrably impaired.”
2. Activate: Update Your Policies & Procedures
A legally defensible policy anticipates a case like Naylor. It requires you to act with due process, not react emotionally to public pressure.
-
Actionable Tip: If you’re a department head or a city manager, your current policy should not allow for termination simply because of a public outcry. Instead, it must mandate a documented investigation to measure tangible disruption.
3. Validate: Audit Your Actions
Just as a company regularly audits its finances, local government entities must regularly audit their disciplinary actions to ensure they are being applied consistently and lawfully. Are you treating similar cases the same way? Are you documenting tangible harm, or just public anger? This ongoing process of validation is your best defense against a future lawsuit.
Immediate Next Steps for a Local Government Official
-
Read the Naylor Opinion: Schedule a quick review of the Naylor opinion with your legal counsel.
-
Audit Your “Disruption” Documentation: Pull your last two disciplinary files related to employee speech. Can you find tangible, measurable evidence of workplace disruption, or is it just a summary of complaints?
-
Draft a Disruption Checklist: Create a simple, one-page form that supervisors must complete before proposing disciplinary action for employee speech. This form should ask them to list concrete examples of how the speech has impaired harmony, relationships, performance, or credibility.
