In May and June of 2021, Jeanne Hedgepeth, an Illinois public-school teacher, posted on her Facebook page a series of memes and comments regarding George Floyd’s death. Those posts, along with an online debate with a former student about race in America, resulted in a number of complaints being filed with the School District by students, teachers, and parents. The District was forced to respond to media requests, distancing itself from the comments. Further, the school was unable to properly function as the comments caused unrest among the students and staff. In light of the disturbance and Ms. Hedgepeth’s prior history of using vulgarity in front of students, the District terminated Ms. Hedgepeth’s employment. In turn, Ms. Hedgepeth filed a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit alleging that her termination violated her First Amendment rights. The Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the District, noting that the speech was not protected by the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that decision. Hedgepeth v. Britton, Case No. 24-1427. 2025 WL 2447077 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025).

To determine whether Hedgepeth’s speech was protected, the Seventh Circuit applied the Pickering balancing test – a test designed by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education that requires: (1) the plaintiff to show that they spoke, as a citizen, on a matter of public concern; and (2) that the government did not have an adequate reason for burdening their employee’s speech in light of the employee’s own interests. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. The Court found that the nature of Ms. Hedgepeth’s comments did implicate the First Amendment. However, considering the disturbances that the comments caused, the District had a strong justification for burdening her speech. The District received over 100 email complaints about the posts. They were also forced to expend time and resources to respond to the media about Ms. Hedgepeth’s posts. Most importantly, the posts had caused a rift between Ms. Hedgepeth, her colleagues, and her students. The school was unable to carry out its core function – to provide a safe learning environment for students – and was therefore justified in taking corrective action.

At the heart of the opinion lies one fundamental question for approaching First Amendment retaliation cases brought by public employees: What is the actual disturbance the speech is causing? In Hedgepeth, the disturbances were clear and irrefutable. However, without the numerous complaints, the school would have been unable to show that there was sufficient interference with its core mission. As such, public employers should not take it upon themselves to police the social media posts of all of their employees. However, once complaints begin to arise, they should be cognizant of the effect their employees’ social media posts have on the public entity’s ability to function. If the social media posts seriously interfere with the entity’s ability to function or the personnel relationships within the entity, then corrective action may be necessary.

For more information about this article, please contact Tressler Attorney Alex Myers at amyers@tresslerllp.com.

About the Author

Alexander (Alex) Myers serves as an associate in Tressler’s Local Government and Litigation Practice Groups. His practice is primarily focused on civil rights litigation, tort litigation, employment litigation and counseling, and matters arising from section 1983, and police misconduct. Alex has successfully defended his clients through all stages of litigation and, through that process, has gained valuable litigation skills. Click here to read Alex’s full attorney bio.