PSA: Wearing Stuff Saying 'Don't Tread On Me' Could Now Be Racial Harassment In The Workplace

Townhall ^ | August 4, 2016 | Matt Vespa

[2ndDivisionVet]

So, wearing “Don’t Tread On Me” paraphernalia may constitute racial harassment in the workplace. From a 2014 complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the folks who decide sift through hostile work environment claims at federal agencies, a person wearing such patriotic gear triggered “Sheldon D.” (not his real name) back in 2014. Lawyer Eugene Volokh blogged about this ridiculous case in The Washington Post, where the offended party cited the Gadsden flag as racially insensitive to blacks because its creator, Christopher Gadsden, owned slaves.

So did Thomas Jefferson. So did George Washington. You don’t see massive protests against him on President’s Day. Why? Because that would be insurmountably stupid, just like this claim, where a black liberal seems to have been trying to stifle his co-worker’s free speech rights. Heck, even the EEOC found that the flags origins are not racist, but because the flag has been associated with “racially tinged” messages as of late—an investigation can go forward. Volokh posted portions of the ruling and his legal analysis over this absurd assault of free speech:

After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military.

However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts. For example, in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.

[…]

In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which C1 displayed the symbol in the workplace. In so finding, we are not prejudging the merits of Complainant’s complaint. Instead, we are precluding a procedural dismissal that would deprive us of evidence that would illuminate the meaning conveyed by C1’s display of the symbol.

A few thoughts:

1. Recall that this is not a case about when private employers may restrict what their employees wear on the job, or even about when government employers may do so. Private employers have very broad power on this, because they aren’t bound by the First Amendment (though statutes in some states may constrain employers’ power to some extent). Government employers also have fairly broad power to restrict their employees’ on-the-job speech and behavior.

Instead, this is a case about the rules that all employers, public or private, must follow, on pain of massive legal liability. The harassment law rules (which, as I noted, are the same for private employers as for the federal government) are imposed by the government acting as sovereign — the area where the First Amendment should provide the most protection — not just the government acting as employee.

Volokh adds that in this complaint, Sheldon D. did not allege that the Don’t Tread on Me cap-wearer made racially offensive remarks. It’s pretty much a complaint stating that he doesn’t like a piece of American history because he is of such a soft constitution that he can’t tolerate other beliefs and opinions. Is this real life? A complaint was filed over a cap? This is a more sophisticated case of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and political correctness. It’s the part of the poisonous vein of progressivism, where anything they don’t like is considered racist, morally wrong, or both. Funny since they love to wear those Che Guevara t-shirts, who was pretty…racist in his feelings towards blacks, but I digress. Volokh adds his legalistic scenario showing how this is setting a nightmare precedent:

Let’s think about how this plays out in the workplace. Imagine that you are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.” An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially insensitive.”

Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you may do as a matter of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the question is whether the government is pressuring you to suppress speech that conveys certain viewpoints.)

Oh, you know this foul brew is going to come up again—bet on it. And all of it’s ridiculousness.

[CopperTop]

But there’s all kinds of accessories at Palmetto State Armory with the Gadsen on it. d;^)

[Cooter]

my work mug...
bought at Cracker Barrel...

[loveliberty2]

"Politically correctness," in all its forms, is, in fact, ugly censorship, imposed by one group, over the rights of everyone else.

Such censorship relies on coercively-imposed restrictions on speech which, in America, was intended to be that speech which was unrestrained by political fiat or that which might "offend" another.

As a matter of fact, that great champion of the rights of conscience and free speech, Thomas Jefferson, stated:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Contrast that idea of freedom with the group think imposed on college and university students who are subject to haughty and arrogant "professors," bureaucrats and politicians of the "progressive" mindset!

These assorted mind controllers have concluded the view expressed by Thomas Jefferson here is dangerous and must be opposed. Their bias in favor of "progressivism" blinds them to the real intent and purpose of the First Amendment's protections.

"Politically correctness," in all its forms, is, in fact, ugly censorship, imposed by one group, over the rights of everyone else.

Such censorship relies on coercively-imposed restrictions on speech which, in America, was intended to be that speech which was unrestrained by political fiat or that which might "offend" another.

As a matter of fact, that great champion of the rights of conscience and free speech, Thomas Jefferson, stated:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Contrast that idea of freedom with the group think imposed on college and university students who are subject to haughty and arrogant "professors," bureaucrats and politicians of the "progressive" mindset!

These assorted mind controllers have concluded the view expressed by Thomas Jefferson here is dangerous and must be opposed. Their bias in favor of "progressivism" blinds them to the real intent and purpose of the First Amendment's protections.

[rfreedom4u]

You should wear it in public along with a Trump hat!

[atomic_dog]

Bite me!

[Amendment10]

Even if wearing “Don’t tread on me” reasonably constituted race-related workplace harassment, please consider the following.

The only race-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights. This is evidenced by the 15th Amendment.

But since work environment issues are clearly outside the scope of voting rights, the feds have no constitutional authority to decide INTRAstate workplace policy on the basis of race imo.

In fact, since the states gave Congress the specific power to legislatively strengthen all rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect when the states ratified the 14th Amendment, Congress has the constitutional authority only to strengthen the 1st Amendment-protected free speech rights of people who wear expressive t-shirts imo.

Another major constitutional problem with this issue is that Congress should not be front-ending itself with constitutionally undefined “independent federal regulatory agencies” like the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

In fact, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide these clauses from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats running constitutionally undefined agencies like the EPA, IRS and EEOC.

So Congress has a constitutional “monopoly” on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not.

But by delegating legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, powers that the states have never constitutionally delegated to Congress in this case, corrupt Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above.

Also note that by allowing federal officials outside the legislative to get away with stealing legislative branch powers, stolen 10th Amendment-protected state powers in this case, that corrupt lawmakers are letting outsiders do their unconstitutional, unpopular work for them. And by letting outsiders do their dirty work for them, lawakers are able to keep their voting records clean so that they can fool low-information patriots into reelecting them.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will put a stop to unconstitutonal, vote-winning inteference in state affairs.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

[silverleaf]

http://www.newalexpa.com/history3.htm

Here is the flag of the First Battalion, Westmoreland County PA (in which several of my ancestors served) designed when the inhabitants issued the Hannastown Resolve against the British - in 1775

[wally_bert]

I would have used it as a grease or oil rag.

[TigersEye]

The dilemma will be which to guillotine first, libs or muzzies.

Media hacks. We can decide between the other two after that.

[CrimsonTidegirl]

I would wear one if that awful snake wasn’t on it, Lol. I have an irrational phobia of those horrible things.

I have seen more Gadsden flags the past few months than I have in my entire life. On certain weekends, I see groups of young men drive through town with Gadsden, American &, sometimes, the Confederate flags flying on their vehicles. I think they know something’s coming & are getting ready.

Regarding this story, these snowflakes need to get a life.

[kiryandil]

I'm going to get a Jefferson nickel t-shirt.

Plus, you can leave Jefferson nickels in places to trigger BLM special snowflakes.

"He left a Jefferson nickel and a Washington quarter on my lawn! Horrors!"

[the OlLine Rebel]

This is the naval jack during RevWar times.

I like it better than the Gadsden. American stripes, and a stretched out snake. Easier to replicate than the poor coil on the Gadsden.

[AFreeBird]

The lock screen on my iPad is:

My iPad is racist I suppose.

[AFreeBird]

LOL. See above

[AFreeBird]

Yea, the red and white stripes was the Sons of Liberty.

[bravo whiskey]

So I wear it to do yard work, but only in the back yard. Am I a hypocrite? After all, It’s a t-shirt that lacks holes, and Those are rare in my home.

easy to fix. take it to the range next time.

[Elderberry]

The First Navy Jack dates back to 1775.

http://www.navyjack.info/history.html

[scrabblehack]

I suppose they’re going to tell us now that Crispus Attucks was 1/4 black at best...

[Sgt_Schultze]

This is also the current Jack ordered by the Navy on September 11, 2002, to be flown on ships through the duration of the War on Terror