Do Public Employees Have First Amendment Free Speech Rights At Work?
Yes, public employees have free speech rights under the First Amendment. But those rights are not unlimited when it comes to workplace conduct. Courts apply a balancing test: does the speech address a matter of public concern, and if so, does the government employer’s interest in workplace efficiency outweigh the employee’s free speech rights?
That balance tips quickly when the “speech” includes personal insults. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, “A public employee can’t blend protected speech with ‘caustic personal attacks against colleagues,’ and then use the protected speech to immunize those attacks.” Patterson v. Kent State Univ., No. 24-3940, 2025 WL 2630307, at *9 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025)(quoting Dunn v. Carroll, 40 F.3d 287, 293 (8th Cir. 1994)). Translation: you cannot lace workplace complaints with profanity and identity-based insults and then demand constitutional protection for the whole package.
Best Employee’s Rights Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- What Religious Protections Do Employees Have Against Conflicting Grooming Standards?
- Can Religious Employers Use Faith-Based Beliefs To Discriminate Against LGBTQ+ Employees?
- Can I Be Terminated For Refusing To Address Transgender People By Their Chosen Names And Pronouns? Yes!
What Happens If An Employee Blasts Coworkers Online And Then Claims Gender Identity Discrimination?
Joanne Patterson was given opportunities many professors only dream about. She was invited to participate in founding a Gender Studies program at Kent State, offered a reduced teaching load so she could dedicate time to it, and given a position of recognition—without regard to gender identity.
But when things did not unfold exactly how she wanted, Joanne blamed it all on gender identity discrimination and took to X with a tirade aimed at two colleagues. The problem? Her “complaints” were laced with personal attacks about gender, race/color, and sexual orientation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summed up the tweets:
Patterson condemned both Mazzei and Munro-Stasiuk as ‘transphobe[s]’ and ‘cishet white ladies in charge, with [no] content expertise,’ engaged in ‘F*ckery,’ ‘shit,’ ‘trans antagonism,’ and ‘epistemic violence’ who were ‘quite literally killing [me].’ And Patterson specifically called out Mazzei as a ‘usurper’ and ‘cishet white admin with zero content expertise’ whose field was a ‘sentient trash heap,’ and who was guilty of ‘back-stabbery’ and ‘horizontal violence.’ Munro-Stasiuk understood these tweets to mean that she and Mazzei, ‘as heterosexual white females, were incompetent and not otherwise capable of leading the effort to develop the Gender Studies Major and re-imagine the Center.’
Those colleagues were Catherine Mazzei, a faculty peer, and Toni Munro-Stasiuk, an administrator. The irony here is rich: Joanne invoked gender identity discrimination while weaponizing her coworkers’ gender, sexual orientation, and race against them—the very categories the university is required to protect under employment law.
And that is exactly why the United States Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. , 145 S. Ct. 1540, 221 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2025), held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all races, genders, gender identities, and sexual orientations. Employers must protect employees from discrimination and harassment based on any protected category. Title VII does not operate as a one-way street for certain groups; it applies across the board. So, when Joanne attacked colleagues based on their own protected statuses—lacking qualifications because they were “cishet white ladies,” she flipped the law on its head.
Best Gender Identity Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Gender Identity Discrimination Is Wrong And Illegal In The Workplace
- Can Employers Beat Race And Gender Claims By Equally Harassing Everyone?
- Race And Gender Won’t Save Bad Employees From Being Fired
Why Did The Court Reject Joanne Patterson’s Gender Identity Discrimination Claim?
Joanne argued that the university denied her transfer because of gender-identity bias. The Court rejected this argument because she could not show pretext—that the university’s reasons were a cover for bias.
Here are the key facts: Joanne wanted to transfer into a new role associated with the Gender Studies program. She pushed to move away from her existing department and sought a permanent reassignment into the Center connected to Gender Studies. The university said no. Why? Because the need simply was not there. The program already had leadership in place and limited demand for additional faculty. Universities, like any employer, are not obligated to manufacture new positions or rearrange faculty just because someone requests it.
The Court illustrated this point with a sharp analogy: “An Italian person may offer to teach Italian classes, but if a university doesn’t need more Italian classes, that’s not direct evidence of animus against Italian people. So there’s no direct evidence of discrimination.” Likewise, Joanne’s request was denied not because of her gender identity, but because there was no institutional demand for her proposed move.
On top of that, Joanne’s conduct undermined her case. Her public Twitter rants against Catherine Mazzei and Toni Munro-Stasiuk, branding them as “cishet white ladies” guilty of “back-stabbery” and “epistemic violence,” painted her as disruptive rather than collaborative. That gave the university another nondiscriminatory reason to deny her request.
Without evidence showing that the stated reasons were false and that the real motive was bias, Joanne could not prove pretext. The Court concluded that her claims amounted to “conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions,” legally insufficient to survive under Title VII.
Best LGBTQAI+ Workplace Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Employer’s Lies Are Called Pretext
- How Do I Prove Pretext For My Wrongful Termination?
- Yes, You Can Be Disciplined For Publicly Airing Grievances, Refusing To Work, And Failing To Understand What FMLA Is – Even If You’re A Tenured Law Professor Claiming Race Discrimination
How Do I Find The Best Lawyer For Employment Discrimination Near Me?
If you are dealing with workplace discrimination, harassment, or believe you were wrongfully fired, do not turn social media into your battleground. Document what happened—names, dates, emails, policies—and talk to a qualified lawyer before you post.
Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is one of the largest firms in the United States dedicated solely to employee rights. That scale means more resources, more trial-tested lawyers, and more experience standing up to powerful employers. We offer free initial consultations and a no-fee guarantee. With vast trial experience, a history of great results, and the empathy to guide employees through tough times, we fight to give workers the best chance at real justice.
If you are searching for the best lawyer for employment discrimination or wrongful termination, call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee’s rights blog provides general information about employment law, race, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation discrimination and should not be taken as legal advice. Every employee’s workplace discrimination and harassment situation is different, and you should consult with a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for advice specific to your case. Reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship. No promises are being made about the outcome of any employee’s rights case. This blog is a legal advertisement. If you believe you have experienced workplace discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or that you have been wrongfully fired, you should immediately seek advice from the best employment law attorney you can find to protect your rights against your employer.