What Is Gleanings?

At Christianity Today, we’re constantly tracking important developments in the church and the world. Often we use our network of reporters around the world (and for that, visit our main site). But we also monitor other news outlets, bloggers, newsmakers’ social media feeds, and countless other information streams. Gleanings compiles the most urgent and interesting items we’ve found, explains why you need to know about them, and gives you the background you need to understand them. It’s our snapshot of what God is doing in the world, hour by hour.

Free Newsletters

« Billy Graham's Record Grows as 'Most Admired Man' in America | Main | Hawaiian Church Ponders What To Do with 600 Bodies »

December 31, 2012

Employer-Limited Speech Not a First Amendment Violation, Appeals Court Says

Court: University of Toledo HR director's op-ed "contradicted the very policies that she was charged with creating, promoting, and enforcing."

A federal court has ruled that employers can hold employees accountable for their public speech—even when the speech relates to issues of public concern—upholding a lower court's ruling.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University of Toledo, an Ohio public school that fired human resources director Crystal Dixon after she expressed views in a newspaper column that ran counter to university policies. The court held that Dixon's public speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

The case has been ongoing since 2008, after Dixon was fired from her position. Dixon wrote an opinion column against labeling homosexuals could be "civil rights victims," expressing her views as an African-American and Christian. However, those views contradicted the university's stance.

Earlier this year, an Ohio district court ruled that the university did not violate Dixon's free speech rights. Rather, the court found that, because of the nature of her position with the school, Dixon's op-ed was inhibiting the school's ability to carry out its work. The appeals court ruling affirmed this decision.

CT previously noted the district court's ruling in March.

Post a comment:

Verification (needed to reduce spam):