When Politics Meets Policy: RPJ’s Heidi Reavis Featured on Navigating Political Speech in the Workplace
Today, RPJ’s Heidi Reavis was featured in HR Executive, sharing how employers can navigate political and cultural expression in the workplace while maintaining a professional and collegial environment.
The article, Free Speech at Work: How Far is Too Far?, addresses the challenges private employers encounter in balancing employees’ expectations and freedom of expression with employers’ need to prevent workplace disruption, especially in today’s highly polarized political climate. As Ms. Reavis explains, “[t]he First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from government interference with expression; however, the First Amendment does not apply to the private workplace setting,” calling out a “common misconception” that private employers cannot regulate employee clothing and symbolic displays.
Ms. Reavis emphasizes that employers possess the authority to set workplace standards and, “[g]enerally speaking, employers are permitted to put company interests before individual outward expression.” While private employers can largely determine the use of symbols and dress codes at work, Ms. Reavis discusses the exceptions that exist, such as under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which allows employees to engage in “concerted activity” advocating for workplace improvements such as greater safety, wage standards, and anti-discrimination matters. She notes, however, that when employee expression “crosses the line into political communications, both employer and employee face a range of potential legal, as well as practical, challenges […] Employers still have the right to prevent disruption and hostility in the workplace, which is often where the rubber meets the road.”
Ms. Reavis advises employers to consider existing company culture when setting expression policies: “For example, if an employer permits classically ‘patriotic’ symbols in the workplace – flags, slogans, hats and the like – but seeks to prevent critical or reactive symbols, the employer may be exposing itself to claims of discrimination and retaliation.” When addressing potential violations, Ms. Reavis recommends caution and collaboration with legal counsel. “Unless the expression is harassing, discriminatory or disruptive, dial your lawyer before dialing it down,” she says, urging employers to be “cautious and reflective as opposed to reactive.”
Ultimately, Ms. Reavis underscores the importance of clarity and inclusivity in policies and internal initiatives, and prioritizing proactive strategies for fostering respectful dialogue while minimizing workplace conflict. She cautions against reactive program or policy changes that can sometimes backfire, noting how litigation can sometimes flow from employer “fixes” that were well intended. “Our firm has seen an uptick in disputes and litigation resulting from internal initiatives intended to unify employees, where individuals in the group felt offended or targeted based on their expression and/or profile […].” Many employers have handbook guidance concerning speech and attire, but not necessarily with the contemporary era in mind. Employers should anticipate that external political moments are not parked at the company door, and approach these realities with realism and sensitivity.
Read the full article here.
This article is intended as a general discussion of these issues only and is not to be considered legal advice or relied upon. For more information, please contact RPJ Partner Helen D. “Heidi” Reavis who counsels clients in areas of corporate operations and management, employment matters and dispute resolution, and media and intellectual property law.