PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has ruled that the Port Authority of Allegheny County’s ban on its employees wearing face masks emblazoned with “Black Lives Matter” at work violates the First Amendment.
In a 45-page opinion issued on Tuesday, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan granted a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the “Black Lives Matter” mask policy, finding it infringed upon the free speech rights of the employees affected.
“The Port Authority has failed to present sufficient evidence that allowing its employees to wear ‘Black Lives Matter’ or equivalent masks is ‘likely to disrupt the efficient operation of the workplace,” Ranjan said.
“The Port Authority’s position reflects an outsized fear of relatively harmless, but important, employee speech – a view that is incompatible with the First Amendment, even in the unique context of a government workplace. Initially, there is no compelling evidence of actual disruption caused by employees wearing masks that display political or social-protest messages.”
Plaintiffs Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85, James Hanna, Sasha Craig and Monika Wheeler first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 30 versus the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Founded in 2013, Black Lives Matter is an anti-racist social movement seeking to eradicate racial prejudices, seek equal justice, and build power to intervene in systemic violence inflicted on Black and Brown communities by state actors and vigilantes,” the suit stated.
“The BLM movement garnered widespread global support and attention in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by police while in police custody on May 25, 2020. Support for BLM continued to swell worldwide throughout the summer of 2020. The ATU International and Local 85 as organizations have fully endorsed and support the Black Lives Matter movement.”
Shortly thereafter, on July 23, 2020, the defendant allegedly changed its “Uniform Standards for Port Authority Operators” to read as follows: “Buttons, stickers, jewelry and clothing (including masks or other face coverings) of a political or social protest nature are not permitted to be worn.”
Though PAT management publicly endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement, the transportation agency also held concerns that permitting its employees to wear masks in support of Black Lives Matter could potentially disrupt the workplace, from conflicts relating to other employees wearing face masks championing opposing sociopolitical movements.
However, there was not a single reported instance of such an incident.
In addition, PAT had previously espoused support for causes such as LGBTQ Pride, Black History Month, women’s rights and others, which the employees argued made the policy at issue an inconsistent one.
For these reasons and others, it led Ranjan to conclude that the policy unfairly infringed on the free speech and expression rights of PAT employees.
“As a factual matter, the record doesn’t reflect anyone wearing a mask depicting a responsive message of any kind that has created actual or likely disruption. And a restriction on First Amendment rights in a government workplace cannot be based on speculation over a risk of disruption caused by speech or messages that others may potentially convey in the future. That is simply too attenuated of a risk of disruption,” Ranjan concluded.
“While it may certainly discipline employees for rude or disruptive behavior, the Port Authority does not have a legitimate, let alone weighty, interest in ensuring that its employees do not express, in any fashion, a political or social position at work that might inspire a co-worker or member of the public to disagree. To hold otherwise would run contrary to the entire premise of the First Amendment, which is that disagreement and debate are not evils to be feared or purged, but societal goods to be welcomed and nurtured.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01471
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com