S6 Ep 111: Free Speech at Work: The Ursula Milde Case

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.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everyone and welcome back for another deep
dive.
This time we're taking a lookat a First Amendment case.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Oh, wow.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
That really makes you think about free speech at work
.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hmm, yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
We'll be looking at court documents in this case.
Mm-hmm, and well, the ending'spretty surprising.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I bet.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
A jury actually awarded our main character
$325,000.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Wow, that's a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Yeah, it is.
So let me introduce you toUrsula Mild.
Okay, she was running thisplace called a Parsonage Cottage
for senior residents.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Gotcha, so a senior living place.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Yeah, exactly, and this was in Greenwich,
connecticut, okay, and she hadthis boss named Benjamin Little,
okay, he was the CEO of theHousing Authority, so he was
above her.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yeah, he was her supervisor.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, and they had this boss named Benjamin Little.
He was the CEO of the HousingAuthority, so he was above her,
yeah he was her supervisor.
Yeah, and they had a pretty bigdisagreement about the seniors
and if they should have arecreation director.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Oh, interesting, so like activities and stuff.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Right right, Like should they hire someone to come
in and do activities with theseniors or not?

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Sounds like something they should have.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
You'd think so, but it turned into this huge thing.
Have You'd think so, but itturned into this huge thing.
Yeah, mild, really thought thata recreation director was super
important.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Good for her sticking to what she believes in?

Speaker 1 (01:09):
Yeah, and she even went so far as to post a job
notice for the position.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Wait, she posted it before getting approval.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
Yeah, she did Bold move.
Yeah, I guess she was trying tobe proactive, but Little wasn't
too happy about it.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
I bet not.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Yeah, he was all about following procedure and
staying within the budget.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, yeah, he is the CEO.
He has to think about thebudget.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
Exactly, and at the end of the day, he was the one
in charge.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah, so he decided no recreation director.
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
He shut it down.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Wow.
So you've got Mild, who'spassionate about this issue, and
then you've got little, who'sfocused on the rules and his
authority it was a recipe fordisaster you can say that again
and it gets worse.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
Their disagreements are all documented wait really
yeah, they were sending memosback and forth oh, that's not
good nope, it was a total messso what did they say in the
memos?
Well, little was basicallysaying you know, I'm the boss,
you need to listen make senseand mild was pushing back,
saying that she knows what'sbest for the residents.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Oh boy.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yeah, and I found this one memo from Mild.
That's like a perfect exampleof disagreeing with your boss,
but in a polite way.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
Oh, I want to hear this.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Okay, so she writes.
Let me assure you that I haveproceeded with this not because
I want to usurp your authority,but because I know you are very
busy and it is my responsibilityto do what needs to be done and
what is best for the residentsat PCSR and the total operation.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Wow, she really went for it.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, she wasn't backing down at all.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
She definitely stood her ground.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, and it all kind of came to a head at this big
board meeting.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Oh, this is where it gets juicy.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yep, the housing authority board meeting on May
22nd 2000.
Is where it gets juicy.
Yep.
The Housing Authority boardmeeting on May 22nd 2000.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
Oh, Mild went to the meeting thinking it was part of
her job.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
Oh, but the board members didn't see it that way
at all.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
What did they think she was doing there?

Speaker 1 (02:54):
They thought she was stepping out of line, trying to
overstep her bounds.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yeah, I can see why they'd think that.

Speaker 1 (02:59):
And then, to make matters worse, the local
newspapers got wind of the story.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah, they even quoted Mild saying some pretty
controversial things.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Like what.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
She said if you don't provide recreation services,
that's a form of abuse.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
Ooh, that's putting them on blast yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:16):
She was publicly calling out her own employer.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Not a good look.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
No, it wasn't, Little was furious.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah, I bet he was.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
He took disciplinary action against Mild.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
I bet.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah, he said she was insubordinate and deceptive.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
So basically saying she wasn't following the rules.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Right and he was really upset about her talking
to the press.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Can't say I blame him .

Speaker 1 (03:35):
But Mild didn't back down.
What did she do?
She refused to apologize andshe filed a complaint with the
EEOC.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
What's the EEOC?

Speaker 1 (03:45):
It stands for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
So they handle like discrimination and stuff.
Yeah, exactly what kind ofdiscrimination did she claim?

Speaker 1 (03:52):
She said she was being discriminated against
because of her age and gender.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Wow, this is getting complicated.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, and it doesn't stop there.
The conflict between Mild andLittle just kept getting worse.
You're kidding Nope, they werefighting over everything Access
to contracts, notificationprocedures.
It was a total breakdown oftheir working relationship.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
It sounds like a nightmare.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
It was, and eventually Mild was fired.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
What was the reason?

Speaker 1 (04:17):
Little said it was because of poor work performance
and failure to follow housingauthority regulations.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
But was that really the whole story?

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Well, that's what we're here to figure out.
Was Mild fired because shewasn't doing her job properly,
or was it something else?

Speaker 2 (04:31):
Hmm, I'm intrigued.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
And here's where things get really interesting.
The court actually sided withMild on one key point.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
What was that?

Speaker 1 (04:40):
They rejected the housing authority's argument
that Mild's concerns were merelyinternal personnel matters.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
Really.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
Yeah, they said that recreation services for seniors
is a legitimate public concern.

Speaker 2 (04:52):
So they're saying it's not just some internal
squabble.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
Wow, this just took a major turn.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
It did.
This little detail blew thecase wide open, and that's what
we'll pick up next time.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
Because now Mild can actually argue that her First
Amendment right to free speechwas violated.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
OK, but she was an employee, right.
Yeah, I mean, doesn't your bossget to have some say in what
you can and cannot say at work?

Speaker 2 (05:13):
Oh, absolutely.
There are definitely limits,especially if you work for the
government, like Mild did.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
So it's not as simple as just saying whatever you
want.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Nope, not at all.
And get this right in themiddle of Mild's case.
The Supreme Court made thishuge decision in a totally
separate case.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
What case?

Speaker 2 (05:29):
It was called Garcetti v Chabalius.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
OK, and what do they decide in that case?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, it basically changed the whole game when it
comes to free speech for publicemployees.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
How so.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
So the Supreme Court said there's a big difference
between speaking as a privatecitizen and speaking as part of
your job duties.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
So like if I'm at work and complaining about my
boss to a coworker, that'sdifferent than me complaining
about my boss on Twitter.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
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 (06:03):
So that means your speech might not be protected by
the First Amendment.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Right, it gets kind of complicated.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
Yeah, I'm starting to see that.
So how did this Garcetti caseaffect Mild?

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, the court had to go back and look at
everything Mild said, especiallyat that board meeting.
To figure out if she wasspeaking as a regular citizen or
as an employee Yep.
They had to decide if herspeech was protected by the
First Amendment or not.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
Wow, so did she end up winning her case.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Well, it's tricky to remember.
She sued over two thingsgetting fired and her right to
free speech.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
So the court did something called summary
judgment.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Summary judgment.
What's that?

Speaker 2 (06:37):
It basically means they made a decision without
having a full-blown trial.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
And in Mild's case they said her firing was legal.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
So she lost.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
Well, she lost that part, yeah, but they said her
statements to the media.
That's a different story.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
So the judge is saying that firing her was okay,
but now a jury gets to decideif she was allowed to talk to
the press.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Exactly.
It's a pretty interesting twist.

Speaker 1 (06:59):
Yeah, it is.
So what did the jury decide?
Interesting twist, yeah it is.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
So what did the jury decide?
Well, they sided with Mild.
They said she had a right totalk to the media and they
awarded her $325,000 in damages.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
Wow, that's a lot of money.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
It is.
It's a huge win for Mild.

Speaker 1 (07:14):
This whole citizen versus employee thing is
confusing.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
It is, it's hard to know where the line is.

Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, Like how am I supposed to know what I can and
can't?

Speaker 2 (07:28):
say at work.
Well, first of all, you shouldalways know your company's
policies about speaking publicly, so like read all the fine
print and stuff.
Yeah, basically, and it's alsosuper important to talk to your
boss if you have any concerns.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
Like don't go posting job notices without permission.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
Right, exactly, try to work things out internally.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
Good advice.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
And then there's that whole Garcetti ruling hanging
over everyone's heads.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
Yeah, that definitely complicates things for public
employees.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
So what's the main takeaway from all of this?

Speaker 2 (07:51):
I'd say the biggest thing is to know that your
employer has more control overwhat you say if you work for the
government.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Even if you're not at work.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Even then, it's really important to understand
the difference between speakingas a private citizen and
speaking as part of your job.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
This whole case has been super interesting.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
It has.
It really makes you think.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
We started with a disagreement about a recreation
director, and now we're talkingabout the First Amendment and
the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
It's amazing how quickly things can escalate.

Speaker 1 (08:20):
And it all comes down to communication.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
Exactly.
If mildild and Little had beenable to communicate better,
maybe things wouldn't havegotten so out of hand.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
Yeah, it really makes you wonder if Mild would do
anything differently if shecould go back in time.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
It's a.
Would she have been morecareful about what she said?

Speaker 1 (08:37):
Or would she have stood up for herself, just like
she did?

Speaker 2 (08:40):
It's impossible to know for sure.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
But it's definitely something to think about.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Yeah, it makes you wonder if you'd make the same
choices if you were in her shoes.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
Yeah, I mean she really cared about those seniors
.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
Yeah, she did.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
But she was also really stubborn.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
I guess so.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
Like maybe too stubborn.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, she definitely stuck to her guns.
Yeah, I guess so.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
Like maybe too stubborn.
Well, she definitely stuck toher guns, yeah.
And it makes you think likewhat if she had done things
differently?
Would it have all worked out?

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Hmm, good question.

Speaker 1 (09:08):
Like, would she have been more careful about what she
said, or would she have stillgone to the media?

Speaker 2 (09:13):
It's tough to say.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
Yeah, I mean she really thought she was doing the
right thing.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
She did.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
But maybe if she had been a little less
confrontational with her bossthings wouldn't have gotten so
out of control.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
Maybe, but then again maybe not.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
True, we'll never know.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
Nope, but it's definitely something to think
about, you know.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Yeah, for sure, Like what would I do if I was in that
situation.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
Right.
Would you speak up, even if itmeant risking your job?

Speaker 1 (09:39):
Tough call, yeah.
This whole case has been sofascinating.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
It really has.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
We started with this simple disagreement about a
recreation director.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Right and it turned into this huge legal battle.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
Yeah, with the First Amendment and the Supreme Court
and everything.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
It's crazy how things can escalate.

Speaker 1 (09:56):
Yeah, it really shows you how important communication
is.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
Absolutely, and it makes you think about the limits
of free speech.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
Especially at work.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
Definitely, the mild case is a good reminder that we
need to be careful about what wesay.

Speaker 1 (10:08):
And that we need to understand our rights as
employees.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
Well, I think we've covered just about everything on
this case.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Yeah, I think so.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
It's been a wild ride .

Speaker 2 (10:16):
It has, that's for sure.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
I hope everyone listening learned something.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
Me too.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
And I hope it makes you think about your own
workplace and how you wouldhandle a situation like this.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, it's important to be prepared.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
All right, well, that's it for this deep dive.
Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Thanks everyone.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
And we'll see you next time for another
fascinating legal case.