New York Law Review

Tag: Picketing

  • Santer v. Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 22 N.Y.3d 253 (2013): Balancing Teacher’s Free Speech vs. School’s Interest in Student Safety

    22 N.Y.3d 253 (2013)

    When a public employee’s speech implicates matters of public concern, the employee’s First Amendment rights must be balanced against the public employer’s interest in promoting efficient public services, considering the manner, time, and place of the speech, and the extent of disruption to the employer’s operations.

    Summary

    This case concerns a disciplinary action against teachers who engaged in a picketing demonstration by parking their cars in front of a middle school, causing traffic congestion and safety concerns during student drop-off. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the school district’s interest in safeguarding students and maintaining effective operations outweighed the teachers’ interest in engaging in this particular form of protected speech. The court found that the teachers’ actions created a potential risk to student safety and an actual disruption to school operations, justifying the disciplinary measures.

    Facts

    Teachers Richard Santer and Barbara Lucia, members of the East Meadow Teachers Association (EMTA), participated in a picketing demonstration on March 2, 2007, by parking their cars along Wenwood Drive in front of Woodland Middle School. The teachers placed signs in their car windows to protest the lack of progress in collective bargaining negotiations. The weather was rainy, and the parked cars prevented parents from pulling alongside the curb to drop off their children, causing them to stop in the middle of the street. This resulted in traffic congestion, and students had to cross through traffic in the rain to reach the school.

    Procedural History

    The Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District charged Santer and Lucia with misconduct. After hearings, they were found guilty and fined. Santer and Lucia then commenced CPLR article 75 proceedings to vacate the arbitration awards. Supreme Court denied the petitions. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the teachers’ speech addressed a matter of public concern and that the District had not shown sufficient disruption to justify the discipline. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the teachers’ First Amendment rights were violated by the disciplinary actions taken against them for participating in a picketing demonstration that caused traffic congestion and potential safety risks to students.

    Holding

    No, because the school district’s interest in ensuring student safety and maintaining orderly operations outweighed the teachers’ interest in expressing their views through this particular form of picketing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court applied the two-part balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, which weighs the employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern against the employer’s interest in promoting efficient public services. The court agreed that the teachers’ speech addressed a matter of public concern (the collective bargaining dispute). However, the court found that the District met its burden of showing that the teachers’ actions created a potential yet substantial risk to student safety and an actual disruption to school operations. The court emphasized that an employer need not wait for actual harm to occur before taking action; a substantial showing of likely disruption is sufficient. The court noted, “[A]n employer is never required ‘to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action’.” The court also considered the manner, time, and place of the speech, noting that the demonstration intentionally blocked a student drop-off point and caused traffic congestion, forcing students to exit cars in the middle of the street during rainy weather. The court also considered that 16 teachers arrived late to work due to the traffic caused by the protest, and that parents and teachers called the school to express concerns. The court concluded that the disciplinary actions were justified, as the District’s interest in student safety and orderly operations outweighed the teachers’ First Amendment rights in this specific context. The court found that the discipline was not motivated by the content of the teachers’ speech but by the disruptive and potentially unsafe nature of their actions. As the court stated, “The interests the District asserts in this case are legitimate: ensuring the safety of its students and maintaining orderly operations at Woodland.”

  • People v. Bush, 39 N.Y.2d 529 (1976): Picketing on Private Property and Federal Labor Law Preemption

    People v. Bush, 39 N.Y.2d 529 (1976)

    Picketing on private property is not automatically protected by the First Amendment and may be subject to state criminal trespass laws, and state court jurisdiction is not necessarily preempted by federal labor law if the picketing involves trespassing conduct.

    Summary

    Union members picketed in front of stores selling their employer’s products, inside the cart corrals on private property. They were arrested for criminal trespass after refusing to move to a nearby parking lot. The New York Court of Appeals held that the picketing was not protected by the First Amendment or federal labor law because the union members were trespassing and interfering with customer access. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the state’s interest in preventing trespass outweighed the union’s right to picket on private property, especially when reasonable alternative locations were offered.

    Facts

    Defendants, employees of Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc. (Wise Potato Chips distributor) and members of the Independent Routeman’s Association, engaged in a labor dispute with Schneider. The defendants picketed several stores that sold Wise products obtained from Schneider. The picketing took place in the cart corrals, areas directly in front of store entrances fenced off by steel railings. Pickets carried signs urging customers not to buy Wise products and chanted loudly. Store managers requested the pickets move to the parking lot driveway; police offered a barricaded area nearby. The pickets refused, claiming a right to picket on private property, leading to their arrest for criminal trespass.

    Procedural History

    The defendants were convicted of criminal trespass in a lower court and received unconditional discharges. The Appellate Term upheld the convictions. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether picketing by union members in front of a store selling their employer’s products is protected under the First Amendment when it takes place on private property.
    2. Whether the jurisdiction of state courts over conduct constituting a violation of the state’s criminal trespass statute is preempted by federal labor law.

    Holding

    1. No, because the right to picket on private property is not absolute and can be restricted when it interferes with property rights and access to businesses.
    2. No, because the state has a legitimate interest in enforcing its criminal trespass laws, which is not necessarily preempted by federal labor law, especially when the picketing involves conduct beyond protected speech.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while the Supreme Court had previously addressed picketing on private property in cases like Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, subsequent decisions, particularly Hudgens v. N.L.R.B., clarified that private property rights generally supersede First Amendment rights unless the property functions as a complete substitute for a traditional public forum, like a company town as in Marsh v. Alabama. Here, the court emphasized that the pickets were asked to move due to their trespassing conduct, not because of their message. The court cited established precedent affirming states’ power to regulate the conduct aspects of picketing, even on public property, citing Cox v. New Hampshire. Therefore, this power extends a fortiori to private property.

    Regarding preemption, the court distinguished San Diego Unions v. Garmon, noting that Garmon and its progeny primarily addressed state attempts to regulate the economic aspects of labor disputes or internal union activities, not trespass. The court cited Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, implying that a state court ruling focused solely on trespassing conduct would not be preempted. The court emphasized that unions cannot unilaterally decide to invade private property. The court noted the NLRB could potentially grant access to private property for picketing under certain circumstances, citing N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., which balances employee rights with private property rights. The court emphasized that the union should have ascertained their rights through the NLRB before trespassing, as in Hudgens v. N.L.R.B., where the union peacefully departed and sought an NLRB order. The court concluded that the union’s actions conflicted with the state’s police powers because they failed to determine their rights in advance and insisted on picketing on private property after being asked to move. The court found the requests by store managers and police to be reasonable, and that there was no attempt to ban picketing altogether.