Source: https://sclscal.org/legal-update-memo-no-18-2018-responding-to-bargaining-units-requests-to-filter-spam-k-12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:05:05+00:00

Document:
As referenced in our Legal Update 16-2018, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, many of our clients reported receiving California Public Records Act (“CPRA”)  requests from the Freedom Foundation and other third-party organizations that have no relationship to the district or its employees. Many of our clients also have reported receipt of correspondence or negotiations proposals from employee unions asserting that the third-party organizations improperly seek information about employees to discourage union membership. In a memorandum dated July 11, 2018, from Andrew Kahn, Chief Counsel for CSEA, Mr. Kahn contends that districts have a duty to filter “spam” email from Freedom Foundation and other such third-parties.
The law governing use of a district’s email system is not settled. However, we have concerns a district could violate the First Amendment if it limits otherwise lawful communications to district employees based solely on the viewpoint expressed in the communication. We strongly encourage districts to consult legal counsel before responding to proposals to censor email addressed to employees.
When speakers and subjects are similarly situated, the state may not pick and choose. Conversely on government property that has not been made a public forum, not all speech is equally situated, and the state may draw distinctions which relate to the special purpose for which the property is used.
In San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board, the California Supreme Court held school districts may prohibit a union from using internal mailboxes for the distribution of partisan political information because the mailboxes are a nonpublic forum. While the issue of a district’s email system being a nonpublic forum has been discussed in other legal jurisdictions, there is no judicial decision affecting California that directly addresses the issue of whether a district’s email system is a nonpublic forum. Again, we recommend that districts consult with legal counsel before responding to union proposals that emails be censored based on viewpoint.
As a practical matter, district staff uses email to communicate with other district staff, parents, students, outside agencies, vendors, etc. in the course of their employment. In addition, district employees represented by a union have been found to have a right to use the district email system to engage in communications that are union-related under the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”). It is our understanding that districts currently implement and maintain various computer programs (“filters”) to limit students and staff from accessing pornographic material and from receiving various types of “spam.” We are not aware of a program that could, as requested by CSEA, filter out “unsolicited emails from persons or entities not under contract with a district and not a parent or student writing about their own issue,” without significantly impairing the ability of district staff to communicate with other staff, parents, students, vendors, outside agencies, and others for work-related purposes. Furthermore, CSEA’s request to prohibit certain individuals and organizations from contacting district employees exposes a district to unnecessary legal risk regarding an unsettled area of law. Districts – not CSEA – would bear the burden of any associated legal challenges.
Legal Update written by Ellie R. Austin, Associate General Counsel, and Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel.
 Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., and Mun. Employees, Council 31 (2018) 138 S.Ct. 2448.
 See Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.
 Such as the California Teachers Association (“CTA”), California School Employees Association (“CSEA”), and the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”).
 (1980) 460 U.S. 37, 55.
 (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 822.
 Napa Valley Community College Dist. (May 25, 2018) PERB Decision No. 2563.
 Such as Yohn v. California Teachers Association (C.D.Cal. 2017) 2017 WL 2628946 (which among other issues, challenges the practice of a default “opt in” process for union membership).
 Concurrence of Supreme Court Justice William Brandeis, Whitney v. California (1927) 274 U.S. 357, 373.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6250
 v. 
 v.