As a blue/gray collar tradesman with just a smattering of legal understanding, I am asking for help from Kos lawyers and paralegals about a case unfolding in Ohio right now that strikes me as a test set-up case.
The case revolves around the dismissal of one Ms. Crystal Dixon from her post as associate vice-president of human resources at the University of Toledo in Ohio over the matter of an editorial that was filled with what I would call homophobic opinions. Ms. Dixon cites First Amendment reasons for the case, and wants full reinstatement.
let's go below the fold a little early.
Now here's where I am confused.
IF, Ms. Dixon is not a contract employee, be it via collective labor agreement or special hiring contract, then Ms. Dixon is an "at the leisure" employee of the University.
If I follow business law properly here, "at the leisure" means that you serve at the pleasure of the employer, and that this "at the leisure" viewpoint has withstood several legal challenges.
Ms. Dixon claims that she was not writing her editorial as an employee of the University of Toledo, but as a private citizen and that she was unfairly fired for her personal opinions.
I contend that this is actually irrelevant, and that she could have been terminated at any time without explanation, regardless of personal opinions and that this is the right of the business owner, which is in this case is the University of Toledo.
If Ms. Dixon has a term contract, or is a contractor-in-service under existing agreement, or is part of a collective bargaining unit, that's quite different. Then she has considerable freedom of opinion, and freedom from firing over same however inflammatory such statements might be.
Now here is where it gets interesting to me. Ms. Dixon is represented by Mr. Tom Sobecki of the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan which appears to be an, if not outright Catholic, then certainly Catholic leaning public interest not-for-profit legal firm. You will see from the page shown that Ms. Dixon's case is given star billing.
However, Mr. Chris Link of the ACLU of Ohio states, and I think quite correctly, that Ms. Dixon's job performance should be the basis for a decision about keeping or firing her, and not her First amendment speech rights. I think Mr. Link recognizes Ms. Dixon's "at the leisure" employment status and wants the University to review her work before arbitrarily dismissing her. I think this is very reasonable and fair.
But, it looks like wingnuttia has seized upon this matter, to the detriment of all, including Ms. Dixon.
Her case has been bellowed about by Rush Limbaugh, The Family Research Council web site (refuse to link), and a variety of LBGT and other sites like Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, and Newsbusters. Ms. dixon also has her own website which you should take a look at. Further, I would take a good look at the last paragraphs of the "about us" introduction from the Thomas More Law Center, I think it is quite revealing.
Our ministry was inspired by the recognition that the issues of the cultural war being waged across America, issues such as abortion, pornography, school prayer, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings, are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts.
These court decisions, largely insulated from the democratic process, have been inordinately influenced by legal advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which seek to systematically subvert the religious and moral foundations of our nation
So, I wonder if Ms. Dixon's case is not so accidental, and not so free speech/First Amendment oriented, but actually as a test case about the limits of punishment for hate speech. If an "at the leisure" employee cannot be fired over inflammatory views that may have an impact upon her job and her performance in a highly diverse environment like a University educational community, then the foot is in the door to allow any homophobia by any ranking official serving "at the liesure" as the pertretrator would be protected from punishment because of his/her "moral stance, and free speech rights" and granted a sort of "special status," that is highly undeserved.
I'd really like some input from our legal eagles here. Because this strikes me as about 5 years too late, and way light in a free speech legal argument. I see an attack on the "at the leisure" rights of an employer concerning his/her non-contract employees that cuts far beyond the University of Toledo or educational communities.
Here is the story from the Toledo Blade. Please read this story carefully, this is strange sounding to me, and you may find it odd too.
Here is the original editorial from the Toledo Free Press
It took me years to overcome homophobia due to programming from an early age. Once I really met an out man, I saw he was no more a threat or danger than a shadow on the wall. He was just another man trying to make a living. I guess I just can't understand the terror of people like Ms. Dixon, and I think god's real view about this matter is far more charitable than Ms. Dixon's or those of her backers.