Right to Free Speech

     The Court of Appeals, in a February 21, 2025 opinion, considered an appeal of Caggiano who argued the Duval County School Board (Board) violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Caggiano taught math in Florida for 25 years, receiving positive employment evaluations.  In 2008, he had established a Facebook account that was rarely utilized and that he believed was set to private.  During the 2020 election, Caggiano made several postings on the page that were political in nature and that could be viewed publicly. As a result, the Board initiated disciplinary proceedings and alleged seven (7) posts violated the code of conduct. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that only two (2) posts/reposts warranted additional inquiry after conducting a full evidentiary hearing. These posts “concern[ed] violence and abuse of a child, as well as discriminatory and degrading views of women being abused and raped.” The ALJ found Caggiano failed to exercise appropriate professional judgment and integrity, failed to maintain confidence in the profession, failed to sustain the appropriate degree of ethical conduct, failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions, intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment, failed to take precautions to distinguish personal views and educational institutional views, and engaged in immorality.  The ALJ determined there was just cause for the discipline and that a written reprimand and three (3) day suspension without pay was appropriate. The Board adopted the recommendations.

Caggiano brought this appeal and argued his right to free speech was violated and that the posts did not violate the code of conduct.  This Court applied the guiding framework of Pickering v. Bd. Of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), to evaluate “the conflicting claims of First Amendment protection and the need for orderly school administration in the context of a teacher free speech claim.”  The framework allowed this Court to consider if Caggiano was speaking on a matter of public concern and if his right to free speech outweighed the employer’s interest in an efficient, undisrupted workplace. Here, the posts regarding a Presidential candidate were of public concern and may have presented a risk in the running of an efficient, undisrupted workplace.  However, upon evaluation, this Court concluded no evidence of disruption existed, almost no evidence anyone had seen the posts, and the posts had occurred on Caggiano’s personal time and computer.

This Court concluded his free speech rights were violated, and the discipline was unwarranted. Caggiano has retired.

Suspension and reprimand should be stricken from his record and pay should be reinstated.