More First Amendment violations.
FWC biologist fired for Charlie Kirk post seeks summary judgement
Courthouse for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. (Photo by Michael Moline/Florida Phoenix)
Lawyers for a state worker fired after a Charlie Kirk-related social media post are again asking a judge to reinstate her.
The American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys representing Brittney Brown, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employee fired in September, are asking for summary judgement in the suit filed against the state.
That would mean the evidence against the agency is strong enough on its face to make a trial unnecessary.
“After a right-wing social media account stalked, copied, and amplified Brown’s private post along with information about her position with the FWC and demanded her immediate termination, the FWC terminated Brown within 24 hours,” Brown’s attorneys argue in a plea for her to get her job back and for injunctive relief preventing further retaliation from FWC, considering the limited opportunities in her field of research.
The case started in September, following Kirk’s killing. Brown reposted to her private Instagram story something that eventually caught the attention of Libs of TikTok, which posted it to X alongside her LinkedIn profile, calling for her firing.
“The whales are deeply saddened to learn of the shooting of charlie kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as charlie kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say, not at all,” Brown shared from a profile that parodies how a whale might see the world. She attests that she shared the post while on vacation and outside of Florida.
The agency claimed the post FWC violated its “zero-tolerance policy towards the promotion of violence and hate,” but Brown’s attorneys argued her repost in no way called for further violence.
Brown wants compensatory damages, given that from the time she was fired until the end of January she’s missed out on nearly $20,000 in wages. She seeks punitive damages, too.
The state argues “her assertions of chill and irreparable harm cannot create standing where there is no ongoing or imminent government action against her.”
Speech in Brown’s social media repost is “protected by the First Amendment and unrelated to her job duties,” the ACLU argues, adding that Brown’s termination was due to “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” and that evidence the state produced in the case “confirms that conclusion.”
FWC posted to social media following the Libs of TikTok post that “comments and actions of this individual are not in line with the FWC, our values, or our mission. We have a zero-tolerance policy towards the promotion of violence and hate, and we will not stand for such behavior.”
The state claimed Brown’s social media repost resulted in hundreds of documented complaints, disrupting FWC operations. Later, it was revealed that approximately 50 documented complaints reached the department and most of those complaints did not reach the people who decided to fire Brown, her attorneys argue.
Background
Brown was a biological scientist studying shorebirds and seabirds at the Tyndall Air Force Base Critical Wildlife Area.
According to the suit filed by Brown, she received performance-based bonuses every year since 2019.
“For over seven years, I showed up to work for Florida and protected our imperiled species. I loved my job; I believed I made a difference and I was proud to work alongside hundreds of dedicated biologists across the state. I never could have imagined that expressing a personal opinion on my own time — separate and unrelated to my work — would end my career overnight,” Brown said in a news release from the ACLU.
“Public employees do not surrender their constitutional rights when they accept a government job. No one should have to choose between their livelihood and their freedom of speech,” Brown said.
FWC has no formal policies governing employees’ private social media accounts, Brown’s attorneys argue.
“FWC’s actions make one thing clear: some state officials are willing to protect speech only when they agree with the message. Political pressure from Tallahassee has reached so deeply into state government that agency leaders feel compelled to enforce a preferred ideology. That kind of state-sanctioned suppression creates a culture of fear, corrodes public trust, and has no place in a free society,” ACLU Florida Executive Director Bacardi Jackson said in the news release.
Kirk’s death and those who made subsequent social media postings prompted firings similar to Brown’s nationwide. When it did not cause firings, it at times caused public backlash and political tension, such as for the Alachua Countyschool board.
“Plaintiff is a scientist, not a public information officer, and her primary job duties do not include regular interaction with the public on behalf of the FWC. Her natural constituency is birds; not human beings,” Brown’s attorneys wrote in their complaint.
The lawsuit mentions, but does not involve, two other FWC employees terminated shortly after Brown “for similar posts.”
The case is in front of U.S. Judge Mark Walker in the Northern District of Florida. Walker denied Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction in November.
“Defendants try to twist the explanation for Plaintiff’s termination, claiming they fired her based on the public’s reaction to her speech and not because of her speech. But that dog won’t hunt,” Walker wrote in his denial of a preliminary injunction.
Since then, the plaintiff’s team learned that the agency had exaggerated the blowback, the ACLU argues, leaving the state’s version of events a “a smoldering crater.”
“FWC has intentionally exacerbated Plaintiff’s injuries by litigating in bad faith, as well as interfering with Plaintiff’s reputation within a tiny professional community, precluding her future employment in Florida and likely beyond. Even now, after the full evidentiary record shines a spotlight on Defendants’ perfidy, FWC still refuses to admit wrongdoing,” the brief reads.
Independent Journalism for All
As a nonprofit newsroom, our articles are free for everyone to access. Readers like you make that possible. Can you help sustain our watchdog reporting today?
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.
No comments:
Post a Comment