Here is more about those allegations and the original complaint<\/a>.<\/p>\nIn 2020, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed their complaint. However, on appeal the Eleventh Circuit held that the fire department\u2019s social media policy was a prior restraint on employee speech, and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
Those proceedings resulted in a jury verdict that the fire department\u2019s issuance of the written warning did not violate the First Amendment \u201cas applied.\u201d That prompted Captain O\u2019Laughlin to appeal. In a brief decision, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the trial court, concluding:<\/p>\n
\n- O\u2019Laughlin contends that because his Facebook post was true, there was no evidence to support the jury\u2019s finding that he recklessly disregarded the truth.<\/em><\/li>\n
- O\u2019Laughlin asserts that when he posted that Captain Newsome \u201ctook\u201d union-time-pool leave for the holidays, he simply meant that the time was applied for and not actually utilized.<\/em><\/li>\n
- O\u2019Laughlin\u2019s post included screenshots depicting that the requested time off was requested, granted, and subsequently cancelled.<\/em><\/li>\n
- We are unconvinced that the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.<\/em><\/li>\n
- The jury was presented with two conflicting theories of the case: O\u2019Laughlin argued that because Newsome applied for and received union leave for a period that included the holidays, his post was truthful.<\/em><\/li>\n
- The County contended that O\u2019Laughlin falsely accused Newsome of taking union leave even though Newsome cancelled the leave before it was taken.<\/em><\/li>\n
- Thus, the County argued, O\u2019Laughlin either knew his statements were false, or recklessly disregarded the truth of his statements.<\/em><\/li>\n
- At trial, the jury considered evidence and testimony presented by an array of witnesses.<\/em><\/li>\n
- The jury could reach its own conclusions about witness credibility and how to weigh conflicting evidence.<\/em><\/li>\n
- We conclude that the jury was within its right to determine that the County\u2019s theory was more persuasive than O\u2019Laughlin\u2019s based on the evidence introduced at trial.<\/em><\/li>\n
- The record shows that O\u2019Laughlin\u2019s testimony was at times confusing and often contradictory, thus diminishing his credibility.<\/em><\/li>\n
- For example, O\u2019Laughlin testified on direct examination that he did nothing to verify the truth of his social media posts.<\/em><\/li>\n
- Additionally, O\u2019Laughlin admitted that at the time he made his posts in February 2019 he was aware that Newsome cancelled his requested time off in November 2018 before it was taken.<\/em><\/li>\n
- And the jury saw O\u2019Laughlin\u2019s Facebook posts where he claimed that Newsome has committed \u201ctheft.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
- Therefore, the jury verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence.<\/em><\/li>\n
- In any event, we agree with the district court that the verdict was not inconsistent.<\/em><\/li>\n
- The jury was permitted to find that although O\u2019Laughlin did not knowingly post false statements, he nonetheless recklessly disregarded the truth of those statements.<\/em><\/li>\n
- There is no alleged inconsistency between these two jury findings because they capture different states of mind.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Here is a copy of the decision:<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n