Opinion ID: 77311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Off-Duty Employment

Text: 50 Deputies Thaeter and Moran contend that their off-duty participation in explicitly sexual or pornographic pictures and videos offered for pay over the Internet for which they were compensated was protected speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments that could not constitute the basis for their terminations. 8 These deputy sheriffs, however, were subject to rules and regulations of their government employer, the PBCSO. Notably, a specific regulation of the PBCSO required them to obtain prior written approval from the Sheriff using the approved request form, before engaging in other employment, occupation, profession or commercial enterprise. Folder I, Exh. A at 13 (IX(16) Off-Duty Employment, Rules and Regulations of the PBCSO) (emphasis added). Additionally, the PBCSO required its employees to adhere to its adopted Code of Ethics, which mandated that employees must keep their private lives unsullied as an example to all. Folder I, Exh. A at 12. The obvious purpose of the prior-approval regulation was to prevent damage to public confidence in the PBCSO by employees' off-duty employment, and the ethical rule similarly required employees to conduct their private or off-duty lives so as not to place the PBCSO in disregard. 51 There is no dispute that Deputies Thaeter and Moran did not seek or obtain prior written approval from Sheriff Bieluch before their off-duty participation in the pornographic pictures and videos for compensation. Although [a] government employee does not relinquish all First Amendment rights otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of his or her employment, nonetheless a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on the speech of its employees, restraints that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. 9 City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 80, 125 S.Ct. 521, 523, 160 L.Ed.2d 410 (2004) (per curiam); see Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 356 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 594, 600 n. 13, 62 L.Ed.2d 540 (1980) (Even when not confronted with the special requirements of the military, we have held that a government employer may subject its employees to such special restrictions on free expression as are reasonably necessary to promote effective government. (collecting cases)); Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247-48, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1445-46, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976) (upholding hair-length regulation of police department against a First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge). 10 When an employee violates a specific rule or regulation to which he or she is subject, the government employer's position is strengthened. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 153 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1693 n. 14, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (citing Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 284, 97 S.Ct. 568, 574, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). 52 Significantly, the rule requiring prior written approval before engaging in off-duty employment is not obtuse or ambiguous. See Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (explaining that a rule should comport with a rough idea of fairness . . . . and [be] sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited). The rule is easily understood by persons of ordinary intelligence. Zook v. Brown, 865 F.2d 887, 892 (7th Cir.1989) (concerning failure of deputy sheriff to obtain prepublication review from the sheriff before submitting a letter for publication in a local newspaper); see Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926) (determining that a regulation is facially vague when it either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application). Therefore, failure to comply with the rule requiring prior written approval from Sheriff Bieluch before engaging in any off-duty employment evidences deliberate disregard for this rule governing the employment of Deputies Thaeter and Moran. Their knowledge of this rule is further shown by the deputies' attempts to conceal their identities in the pornographic videos in which they participated, demonstrating their realization that this off-duty conduct was done in contravention of the rules governing their PBCSO employment. Additionally, the termination of the two websites that featured the wives of Deputies Thaeter and Moran, occurred when the deputies received notice of the internal investigation. 53 In the particularized context of government employees exercising their First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court confirmed in Roe that the appropriate analysis is the balancing test established in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), and clarified by Connick. 11 543 U.S. at 82, 125 S.Ct. at 524-25. This test requires balancing the speech by the government employee with the proper functioning of government offices, which cannot be compromised. 12 Roe, 543 U.S. at 82, 125 S.Ct. at 525. Roe concerned a police officer who off-duty made a sexually explicit video of himself masturbating, which he sold over the Internet on the adults-only section of eBay. Following an investigation, the police officer was terminated for violating specific police department policies, including conduct unbecoming of an officer, outside employment, and immoral conduct. 13 Id. at 79, 125 S.Ct. at 523; see Pena v. DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, 111 (2d Cir.2005) ([T]he fact that an officer is off-duty does not prevent him or her from giving assurances about what he or she or other police officers will or will not do when acting as police officers.). In upholding the terminations of Deputies Thaeter and Moran against the contrary decision of the Hearing Review Board, Sheriff Bieluch stated: Certainly, the Code of Ethics is not so confusing that it would lead the former deputies to engage in pornographic acts. Folder I, Exh. O at 2. The Roe Court clarified that Connick augmented Pickering by making the threshold test for engaging in the Pickering balancing analysis a determination of whether the government employee's speech involved a matter of public concern, defined as a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public at the time of publication. 543 U.S. at 83-84, 125 S.Ct. at 525-26. 54 Similar to the pornographic conduct of the police officer in Roe, the paid participation of Deputies Thaeter and Moran in pornographic photographing and videotaping for Internet display for a fee does not qualify as a matter of public concern under any view of the public concern test. Id. at 84, 125 S.Ct. at 526. Additionally, despite their attempts to disguise themselves while engaging in sexually explicit acts, the deputies' expressive conduct and the fact that they were recognized as deputy sheriffs with the PBCSO by paying Internet voyeurs was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer; it reflected on their fitness as deputies and undermined public confidence in the PBCSO. Id. Because their participation in pornographic photographs and videos for pay is within the context of restrictions by governmental entities on the speech of their employees, the Pickering balancing test is not applicable to the subject sexually expressive conduct of Deputies Thaeter and Moran. Id. at 85, 125 S.Ct. at 526. The district judge properly dismissed the deputies' cases. 14