Limits on Protected Speech Against Accusations of Harassment

USA-- Typically constitutionally-protected speech cannot be criminalized by law enforcement and interpreted in court as harassment, but in my experience employers in their wish to shield themselves from the financial liability they might incur from documented civil rights violations will often turn the tables on civil rights complainants and try to criminalize them and their complaints by getting in-house police involved, taking police reports, and claiming that complaints constitute harassment. At what point would the line for constitutionally -protected discrimination protest and the reasonable assertion of rights be crossed and begin to meet a burden of proof indicating harassment? If a no-contact order was issued but possibly not received, would this be used to show an intent to harass? If all you want is your employer or school to do is follow the law how could a DA twist this around to show an intent to harass? How might one build a convincing case he or she was simply asserting rights and had no intent to harass? The speech under investigation was not offensive in any way and supports a concern with rights and their violation. The employer is claiming the volume of complaints is the concern. If someone is targeted for discriminatory harassment and abuse of legal process on the basis of perceived protected class status does this equal violation of civil rights under color of law?

As I'm sure you know, these forums not general discussion forums, they are for providing legal advice to individuals with regard to their personal experiences. We will be able to respond to your post as soon as you provide details about your personal experiences in the area of free speech in employment.

Quote:

---

Quoting mutualrespect37

---

If someone is targeted for discriminatory harassment and abuse of legal process on the basis of perceived protected class status does this equal violation of civil rights under color of law?

---

"Color of Law" refers to state action/government action.

Civil rights laws can be broken by private sector employers, yes, but it is not under color of law.

Are you speaking of a public or private employer?

Quote:

---

Quoting mutualrespect37

---

If all you want is your employer or school to do is follow the law how could a DA twist this around to show an intent to harass?

---

Probably using the same logic that a judge already used in issuing a restraining order. But, without knowing the answers to BOR's questions, and knowing what speech you were exercising, in what capacity, and other pertinent details, we can't possibly speculate.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

But, without knowing...what speech you were exercising, in what capacity, and other pertinent details, we can't possibly speculate.

---

Yes, exactly.

Yes, it's a university, both a state employer and federally-funded, I'm talkig about. The HR or diversity office is supposed to be upholding and protecting equal rights, but they are themselves the source of unacceptable rights violations and punitive retaliation. When this is pointed out, probably in order to shield themselves and the school from financial liability, they put their conflict-of-interest, in-house police force on the case, take down false police reports about the victim/ complainant and issue no-contact letters about which it can reasonably be argued communication was deceptive and unclear--these were in not "served," by the police or courts but are still used to justify formal legal proceedings. If they are tired of pretending to do their job and mediating complaints these people might at least deign to treat someone like a human being and ask them directly not to phone or email, but they seem more interested in laying a disingenuous framework for later legal action. As I say, volume seems to form the questionable grounds for legal action[/B], not the non-offensive content--which is persuasive, rational speech aiming to convince not harass. The volume claim is hearsay, and might be defended by the fact addressees remained dishonestly silent and refused to address urgent rights-related situations long before asking not to bothered.

Such mistreatment has a disparate legal impact on the "suspect classes" who are likely to need to bring such complaints in the first place and also has a chilling effect on what should be a legally-protected and democratically-valued activity of asserting the need to respect oppressed people’s rights. Because such legal action is based on profiling and the rights violations that often happen and are even socially-sanctioned in homogeneous, ingrown lower-midwestern communities it seems to constitute discriminatory harassment and once the police and criminal courts become involved a violation of civil rights under color of law.

I am thinking of contacting my local FBI office to investigate since complaints with several federal civil rights agencies were of no avail. My current school is hauling me into criminal court for complaining about an extremely painful medical privacy breach by HR, the very office charged with safeguarding this information, and since court is usually public this will likely lead to further damaging exposure. In order to hide the above staff misconduct an HR investigator first lodged a defamatory racism allegation against me, which cost me my job , since he it railroaded through without according me legally-required, minimal due-process rights. My limited number of complaints about the lack of due-process made during one evening via phonemail form the grounds for charges of criminal harassment. Can the court really exclude all evidence of HR misconduct and base their ruling on the fact a fuzzy request for non-contact was violated? How can I build a strong case for engaging in constitutionally protected speech? My lawyer is an insular local who shares common local blindspots and doesn’t seem to realize this whole local county power structure is based on unacceptable conflicts-of interest, but I’m trying to encourage him to seek outside guidance.

Still 'way too general. Again, we cannot comment on what the university is doing generally, we can only comment on what has been done to you and whether you have any legal recourse. Please tell us exactly what HR has done to you personally that you consider to be unacceptable, retaliatory and punitive.

I'm not reading the Great American Novel you posted, but something did jump out at me. Unless your employer learned about your medical condition as a result of your insurance coverage, they are not covered by HIPAA and therefore, it would not be illegal to put up a billboard stating your medical condition if they chose to do that. If you told them, if they got the information because of an STD or WC claim, HIPAA doesn't apply then either.

A common misconception seems to be since a person works for the govt. they have more free speech rights than an employee in the private sector. This may be true to a certain degree, yes, but is not absolute by any means.

IF you feel your civil rights/liberties have been violated, you can consult with an attorney in that specialized field.

Yep, this is a matter for a civil attorney to handle on your behalf. The FBI isn't going to touch it.