Employee Survival Guide®

Free Speech at Work: The Ursula Milde Case

• Mark Carey • Season 6 • Episode 13

Share episode

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This was case I tried to a jury verdict after six years of litigation. Ursula Milde was my client and she represented the grit and determination to do the right thing even if it meant risking her job.  The whole case stemed from her need to liven up the lives of senior citizens in the assisted living center she ran by hiring a recreation coordinator. The senior citizens spent their whole days watching TV and had little interactive activities to do.  During closing argument, I held up a dollar bill in front of the jury and said that is what it cost per day to hire a recreation coordinator.  The jury was convinced and decided against the employer for violating Ms. Milde's freedom of speech rights.  The defendant housing authority was a quasi public private company, hence the freedom of speech issue.  This was a 2006 jury verdict yet the law is still the same today.  

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!

Prepare to dive deep into the complex world of workplace rights and free speech in this riveting episode! We follow the story of Ursula Milde, who bravely advocated for essential recreational services for seniors despite facing pushback from her employer. This episode examines her journey, the conflicts with her boss, Benjamin Little, and how her public statements led to a landmark legal battle concerning employee rights.

Expect to uncover the intricacies of communication in the workplace, the fine line between employee rights and authority, and the challenges of navigating disputes in a professional setting. The discussion extends to the implications of a pivotal Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which reshaped what it means to express oneself at work, and how it applies to Milde’s scenario.

As we analyze the legal considerations and social ramifications of Milde's case, we invite you to reflect on your own workplace experiences and the delicate balance between speaking up and obeying authority. This episode will leave you questioning what you would do in Milde's shoes and whether or not you would stand up for your beliefs, even in the face of significant risk. Join us as we explore these vital workplace themes—tune in, share your thoughts, and be part of this critical conversation!

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Speaker 1:

Hey everyone and welcome back for another deep dive. This time we're taking a look at a First Amendment case.

Speaker 2:

Oh, wow.

Speaker 1:

That really makes you think about free speech at work.

Speaker 2:

Hmm, yeah.

Speaker 1:

We'll be looking at court documents in this case. Mm-hmm, and well, the ending's pretty surprising.

Speaker 2:

I bet.

Speaker 1:

A jury actually awarded our main character $325,000.

Speaker 2:

Wow, that's a lot of money.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it is. So let me introduce you to Ursula Mild. Okay, she was running this place called a Parsonage Cottage for senior residents.

Speaker 2:

Gotcha, so a senior living place.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, exactly, and this was in Greenwich, connecticut, okay, and she had this boss named Benjamin Little, okay, he was the CEO of the Housing Authority, so he was above her.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, he was her supervisor.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and they had this boss named Benjamin Little. He was the CEO of the Housing Authority, so he was above her, yeah he was her supervisor. Yeah, and they had a pretty big disagreement about the seniors and if they should have a recreation director.

Speaker 2:

Oh, interesting, so like activities and stuff.

Speaker 1:

Right right, Like should they hire someone to come in and do activities with the seniors or not?

Speaker 2:

Sounds like something they should have.

Speaker 1:

You'd think so, but it turned into this huge thing. Have You'd think so, but it turned into this huge thing. Yeah, mild, really thought that a recreation director was super important.

Speaker 2:

Good for her sticking to what she believes in?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and she even went so far as to post a job notice for the position.

Speaker 2:

Wait, she posted it before getting approval.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, she did Bold move. Yeah, I guess she was trying to be proactive, but Little wasn't too happy about it.

Speaker 2:

I bet not.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, he was all about following procedure and staying within the budget.

Speaker 2:

Well, yeah, he is the CEO. He has to think about the budget.

Speaker 1:

Exactly, and at the end of the day, he was the one in charge.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so he decided no recreation director. Yep.

Speaker 1:

He shut it down.

Speaker 2:

Wow. So you've got Mild, who's passionate about this issue, and then you've got little, who's focused on the rules and his authority it was a recipe for disaster you can say that again and it gets worse.

Speaker 1:

Their disagreements are all documented wait really yeah, they were sending memos back and forth oh, that's not good nope, it was a total mess so what did they say in the memos? Well, little was basically saying you know, I'm the boss, you need to listen make sense and mild was pushing back, saying that she knows what's best for the residents.

Speaker 2:

Oh boy.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and I found this one memo from Mild. That's like a perfect example of disagreeing with your boss, but in a polite way.

Speaker 2:

Oh, I want to hear this.

Speaker 1:

Okay, so she writes. Let me assure you that I have proceeded with this not because I want to usurp your authority, but because I know you are very busy and it is my responsibility to do what needs to be done and what is best for the residents at PCSR and the total operation.

Speaker 2:

Wow, she really went for it.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, she wasn't backing down at all.

Speaker 2:

She definitely stood her ground.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and it all kind of came to a head at this big board meeting.

Speaker 2:

Oh, this is where it gets juicy.

Speaker 1:

Yep, the housing authority board meeting on May 22nd 2000. Is where it gets juicy. Yep. The Housing Authority board meeting on May 22nd 2000.

Speaker 2:

Oh, Mild went to the meeting thinking it was part of her job.

Speaker 1:

Oh, but the board members didn't see it that way at all.

Speaker 2:

What did they think she was doing there?

Speaker 1:

They thought she was stepping out of line, trying to overstep her bounds.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I can see why they'd think that.

Speaker 1:

And then, to make matters worse, the local newspapers got wind of the story.

Speaker 2:

Oh.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, they even quoted Mild saying some pretty controversial things.

Speaker 2:

Like what.

Speaker 1:

She said if you don't provide recreation services, that's a form of abuse.

Speaker 2:

Ooh, that's putting them on blast yeah.

Speaker 1:

She was publicly calling out her own employer.

Speaker 2:

Not a good look.

Speaker 1:

No, it wasn't, Little was furious.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I bet he was.

Speaker 1:

He took disciplinary action against Mild.

Speaker 2:

I bet.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, he said she was insubordinate and deceptive.

Speaker 2:

So basically saying she wasn't following the rules.

Speaker 1:

Right and he was really upset about her talking to the press.

Speaker 2:

Can't say I blame him.

Speaker 1:

But Mild didn't back down. What did she do? She refused to apologize and she filed a complaint with the EEOC.

Speaker 2:

What's the EEOC?

Speaker 1:

It stands for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Speaker 2:

So they handle like discrimination and stuff. Yeah, exactly what kind of discrimination did she claim?

Speaker 1:

She said she was being discriminated against because of her age and gender.

Speaker 2:

Wow, this is getting complicated.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, and it doesn't stop there. The conflict between Mild and Little just kept getting worse. You're kidding Nope, they were fighting over everything Access to contracts, notification procedures. It was a total breakdown of their working relationship.

Speaker 2:

It sounds like a nightmare.

Speaker 1:

It was, and eventually Mild was fired.

Speaker 2:

What was the reason?

Speaker 1:

Little said it was because of poor work performance and failure to follow housing authority regulations.

Speaker 2:

But was that really the whole story?

Speaker 1:

Well, that's what we're here to figure out. Was Mild fired because she wasn't doing her job properly, or was it something else?

Speaker 2:

Hmm, I'm intrigued.

Speaker 1:

And here's where things get really interesting. The court actually sided with Mild on one key point.

Speaker 2:

What was that?

Speaker 1:

They rejected the housing authority's argument that Mild's concerns were merely internal personnel matters.

Speaker 2:

Really.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, they said that recreation services for seniors is a legitimate public concern.

Speaker 2:

So they're saying it's not just some internal squabble.

Speaker 1:

Exactly.

Speaker 2:

Wow, this just took a major turn.

Speaker 1:

It did. This little detail blew the case wide open, and that's what we'll pick up next time.

Speaker 2:

Because now Mild can actually argue that her First Amendment right to free speech was violated.

Speaker 1:

OK, but she was an employee, right. Yeah, I mean, doesn't your boss get to have some say in what you can and cannot say at work?

Speaker 2:

Oh, absolutely. There are definitely limits, especially if you work for the government, like Mild did.

Speaker 1:

So it's not as simple as just saying whatever you want.

Speaker 2:

Nope, not at all. And get this right in the middle of Mild's case. The Supreme Court made this huge decision in a totally separate case.

Speaker 1:

What case?

Speaker 2:

It was called Garcetti v Chabalius.

Speaker 1:

OK, and what do they decide in that case?

Speaker 2:

Well, it basically changed the whole game when it comes to free speech for public employees.

Speaker 1:

How so.

Speaker 2:

So the Supreme Court said there's a big difference between speaking as a private citizen and speaking as part of your job duties.

Speaker 1:

So like if I'm at work and complaining about my boss to a coworker, that's different than me complaining about my boss on Twitter.

Speaker 2:

Exactly, and the court said that if you're speaking as part of your job, your employer has a lot more power to restrict what you say.

Speaker 1:

So that means your speech might not be protected by the First Amendment.

Speaker 2:

Right, it gets kind of complicated.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I'm starting to see that. So how did this Garcetti case affect Mild?

Speaker 2:

Well, the court had to go back and look at everything Mild said, especially at that board meeting. To figure out if she was speaking as a regular citizen or as an employee Yep. They had to decide if her speech was protected by the First Amendment or not.

Speaker 1:

Wow, so did she end up winning her case.

Speaker 2:

Well, it's tricky to remember. She sued over two things getting fired and her right to free speech.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

So the court did something called summary judgment.

Speaker 1:

Summary judgment. What's that?

Speaker 2:

It basically means they made a decision without having a full-blown trial.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Speaker 2:

And in Mild's case they said her firing was legal.

Speaker 1:

So she lost.

Speaker 2:

Well, she lost that part, yeah, but they said her statements to the media. That's a different story.

Speaker 1:

So the judge is saying that firing her was okay, but now a jury gets to decide if she was allowed to talk to the press.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. It's a pretty interesting twist.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it is. So what did the jury decide? Interesting twist, yeah it is.

Speaker 2:

So what did the jury decide? Well, they sided with Mild. They said she had a right to talk to the media and they awarded her $325,000 in damages.

Speaker 1:

Wow, that's a lot of money.

Speaker 2:

It is. It's a huge win for Mild.

Speaker 1:

This whole citizen versus employee thing is confusing.

Speaker 2:

It is, it's hard to know where the line is.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, Like how am I supposed to know what I can and can't?

Speaker 2:

say at work. Well, first of all, you should always know your company's policies about speaking publicly, so like read all the fine print and stuff. Yeah, basically, and it's also super important to talk to your boss if you have any concerns.

Speaker 1:

Like don't go posting job notices without permission.

Speaker 2:

Right, exactly, try to work things out internally.

Speaker 1:

Good advice.

Speaker 2:

Yeah.

Speaker 1:

And then there's that whole Garcetti ruling hanging over everyone's heads.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, that definitely complicates things for public employees.

Speaker 1:

So what's the main takeaway from all of this?

Speaker 2:

I'd say the biggest thing is to know that your employer has more control over what you say if you work for the government.

Speaker 1:

Even if you're not at work.

Speaker 2:

Even then, it's really important to understand the difference between speaking as a private citizen and speaking as part of your job.

Speaker 1:

This whole case has been super interesting.

Speaker 2:

It has. It really makes you think.

Speaker 1:

We started with a disagreement about a recreation director, and now we're talking about the First Amendment and the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2:

It's amazing how quickly things can escalate.

Speaker 1:

And it all comes down to communication.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. If mildild and Little had been able to communicate better, maybe things wouldn't have gotten so out of hand.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it really makes you wonder if Mild would do anything differently if she could go back in time.

Speaker 2:

It's a. Would she have been more careful about what she said?

Speaker 1:

Or would she have stood up for herself, just like she did?

Speaker 2:

It's impossible to know for sure.

Speaker 1:

But it's definitely something to think about.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it makes you wonder if you'd make the same choices if you were in her shoes.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I mean she really cared about those seniors.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, she did.

Speaker 1:

But she was also really stubborn.

Speaker 2:

I guess so.

Speaker 1:

Like maybe too stubborn.

Speaker 2:

Well, she definitely stuck to her guns. Yeah, I guess so.

Speaker 1:

Like maybe too stubborn. Well, she definitely stuck to her guns, yeah. And it makes you think like what if she had done things differently? Would it have all worked out?

Speaker 2:

Hmm, good question.

Speaker 1:

Like, would she have been more careful about what she said, or would she have still gone to the media?

Speaker 2:

It's tough to say.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I mean she really thought she was doing the right thing.

Speaker 2:

She did.

Speaker 1:

But maybe if she had been a little less confrontational with her boss things wouldn't have gotten so out of control.

Speaker 2:

Maybe, but then again maybe not.

Speaker 1:

True, we'll never know.

Speaker 2:

Nope, but it's definitely something to think about, you know.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, for sure, Like what would I do if I was in that situation.

Speaker 2:

Right. Would you speak up, even if it meant risking your job?

Speaker 1:

Tough call, yeah. This whole case has been so fascinating.

Speaker 2:

It really has.

Speaker 1:

We started with this simple disagreement about a recreation director.

Speaker 2:

Right and it turned into this huge legal battle.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, with the First Amendment and the Supreme Court and everything.

Speaker 2:

It's crazy how things can escalate.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, it really shows you how important communication is.

Speaker 2:

Absolutely, and it makes you think about the limits of free speech.

Speaker 1:

Especially at work.

Speaker 2:

Definitely, the mild case is a good reminder that we need to be careful about what we say.

Speaker 1:

And that we need to understand our rights as employees.

Speaker 2:

Exactly.

Speaker 1:

Well, I think we've covered just about everything on this case.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think so.

Speaker 1:

It's been a wild ride.

Speaker 2:

It has, that's for sure.

Speaker 1:

I hope everyone listening learned something.

Speaker 2:

Me too.

Speaker 1:

And I hope it makes you think about your own workplace and how you would handle a situation like this.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's important to be prepared.

Speaker 1:

All right, well, that's it for this deep dive. Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 2:

Thanks everyone.

Speaker 1:

And we'll see you next time for another fascinating legal case.