Is a Personal TikTok Protected by the First Amendment?

October 5, 2023

Where a plaintiff teacher has alleged that she was retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court has held in favor of the defendants. The court found that the defendants had produced ample evidence to show that the plaintiff’s speech had the potential to disrupt the school district’s learning environment.


Defendants did not contest that the teacher produced the TikTok videos in question as a private citizen or that her posts were a motivating factor in the decision to terminate. Instead, Defendants argued that the teacher’s speech caused a ‘disruption to teaching and learning’ which justified her termination.


It is undisputed that at least some teachers were concerned about the learning environment, but less clear that teachers needed to devote substantial class time to addressing distractions caused by the posts. Nor were there reports of calls or complaints from parents or other community members.


The court held that the Defendants need not allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.


As a public-school teacher, contact with the public, including students and parents who may have been part of groups that the teacher’s posts disparaged, was part of the teacher’s day-to-day responsibilities. The teacher herself acknowledged that her posts could be viewed as derogatory towards transgender individuals.


Several colleagues recognized the posts as inconsistent with the District’s mission to promote tolerance and respect for human differences. Moreover, Defendants’ concerns regarding the nature of the teacher’s posts were directly tied to a risk of disruption in student learning; especially posts regarding transgender students, could make students feel unsafe, unwelcome, or otherwise distracted from learning.


Ultimately, the court held that the Defendants were entitled to terminate a public-facing employee who had taken a stance in direct contradiction to the District’s stated mission.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

December 5, 2025
Our attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the Defendant from the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a Wage Act and contract dispute. The Complainant alleged entitlement to a substantial variable compensation award following resignation. We demonstrated that the compensation plan made such awards discretionary and contingent on continued employment at the time of payout. The Appeals Court agreed, finding that the award did not constitute wages under the Wage Act and that the Defendant acted lawfully in denying payment. All claims were dismissed in their entirety.
By The Royal Law Firm November 5, 2025
Attorney Amy Royal has once again been selected as a Super Lawyer ! As published by Super Lawyers Amy B. Royal is a top-rated attorney, with her firm headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts. Providing legal representation in the New England states and New York, for a variety of different issues, Amy Royal was selected to Super Lawyers for 2014 - 2016, 2019 - 2025. Attorneys like Amy B. Royal are recognized by their peers for their outstanding work and commitment to the spirit of the legal profession. Their knowledge of the law, professional work ethic, and advocacy on behalf of their clients allow them to stand out among other attorneys in the field.