The US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court decision holding that Palm Beach County Fire Rescue did not violate the First Amendment by disciplining a fire captain over remarks he posted in social media back in 2018. This case is one we have covered previously on several occasions.
The suit was filed in 2019 by Captain AJ O’Laughlin and Captain Crystal Little, after they received written warnings for violating the department’s social media policy following a series of posts critical of a union official who sought to use “Union Time Pool” over the 2018 holidays. Here is more about those allegations and the original complaint.
In 2020, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed their complaint. However, on appeal the Eleventh Circuit held that the fire department’s social media policy was a prior restraint on employee speech, and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Those proceedings resulted in a jury verdict that the fire department’s issuance of the written warning did not violate the First Amendment “as applied.” That prompted Captain O’Laughlin to appeal. In a brief decision, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the trial court, concluding:
- O’Laughlin contends that because his Facebook post was true, there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding that he recklessly disregarded the truth.
- O’Laughlin asserts that when he posted that Captain Newsome “took” union-time-pool leave for the holidays, he simply meant that the time was applied for and not actually utilized.
- O’Laughlin’s post included screenshots depicting that the requested time off was requested, granted, and subsequently cancelled.
- We are unconvinced that the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
- The jury was presented with two conflicting theories of the case: O’Laughlin argued that because Newsome applied for and received union leave for a period that included the holidays, his post was truthful.
- The County contended that O’Laughlin falsely accused Newsome of taking union leave even though Newsome cancelled the leave before it was taken.
- Thus, the County argued, O’Laughlin either knew his statements were false, or recklessly disregarded the truth of his statements.
- At trial, the jury considered evidence and testimony presented by an array of witnesses.
- The jury could reach its own conclusions about witness credibility and how to weigh conflicting evidence.
- We conclude that the jury was within its right to determine that the County’s theory was more persuasive than O’Laughlin’s based on the evidence introduced at trial.
- The record shows that O’Laughlin’s testimony was at times confusing and often contradictory, thus diminishing his credibility.
- For example, O’Laughlin testified on direct examination that he did nothing to verify the truth of his social media posts.
- Additionally, O’Laughlin admitted that at the time he made his posts in February 2019 he was aware that Newsome cancelled his requested time off in November 2018 before it was taken.
- And the jury saw O’Laughlin’s Facebook posts where he claimed that Newsome has committed “theft.”
- Therefore, the jury verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence.
- In any event, we agree with the district court that the verdict was not inconsistent.
- The jury was permitted to find that although O’Laughlin did not knowingly post false statements, he nonetheless recklessly disregarded the truth of those statements.
- There is no alleged inconsistency between these two jury findings because they capture different states of mind.
Here is a copy of the decision:
