Workplace display of confederate flag is not constitutionally protected - Court Report

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc. 4th. Cir., No. 02-1266, May 30, 2003.

A white worker's display of two Confederate flag stickers on his toolbox at a South Carolina dairy was not protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the employee's termination for refusing to remove the stickers was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

For years prior to his firing from the Coburg Daily, Matthew Dixon had been a member of an organization of descendants of Confederate veterans. At a certain point, display of the Confederate flag became an issue of heated public debate in the state of South Carolina. In that context, Dixon began to display two Confederate flag stickers on the toolbox he used in performing his mechanic duties at the dairy. A black co-worker at the dairy complained that the stickers were offensive.

The company interceded by offering to buy Dixon a new toolbox to use at work so he could keep the adorned one at home. Responding that his heritage was "not for sale," Dixon refused the company's offer and was fired for violating the company's broad anti-harassment policy.

Dixon sued the dairy under a variety of legal theories, including a South Carolina law that prohibited employers from firing an employee merely for exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. The viability of this claim centered on whether Dixon's display of the Confederate flag stickers on his toolbox amounted to speech protected by the First Amendment

The 4th Circuit concluded that Dixon's display of the Confederate flag stickers was not protected by the Constitution, in upholding the trial court's judgment, the court noted that the employer never sought to interfere with Dixon's right to fly the Confederate flag or to otherwise associate with that cause in his personal life. But as a private employer, Coburg Dairy had no obligation to indulge Dixon's political affiliations in the workplace, especially when his actions resulted in co-workers' claims of racial harassment.

Accordingly, the 4th Circuit struck down Dixon's challenge to his termination.

Professional Pointer

The employer in this case was wise to recognize the impact that Dixon's actions had on his fellow workers, and to make a harassment-free workplace a primary goal. Consistency in enforcement of anti-harassment Policies, however, is key.

BY DECLAN C. LEONARD OF THE LAW FIRM OF ALBO & OBLON IN ARLINGTON, VA.

EDITOR'S NOTE: THESE ARTICLES SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Society for Human Resource Management
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group