Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Police officer’s termination upheld due to social media posts, (Apr 2, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

His Facebook posts were published on the Plainview Project website, which archives officers’ public posts, and the employer claimed the posts contained racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, homophobic, and violent rhetoric, as well as statements advocating excessive force.

A Philadelphia police officer’s termination was upheld after an arbitrator determined that the City of Philadelphia had just cause to dismiss him for conduct unbecoming of an officer due to offensive social media activity. The grievance was denied, and the arbitrator ruled that the employer had just cause to terminate the officer. The arbitrator concluded that the officer’s conduct irreparably damaged his credibility and that the employer acted within its discretion in terminating him without applying progressive discipline (Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5 and City of Philadelphia (Brown, Arb. Dec. 8, 2023)).

Website logs social media posts. The officer was dismissed following an Internal Affairs Division investigation into Facebook posts that were compiled and published on the Plainview Project, a website that archived public posts from law enforcement officers across the country. The employer alleged that the officer’s posts contained racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, homophobic, and violent rhetoric, as well as statements advocating excessive force by police officers. The employer maintained that these posts violated the Philadelphia Police Department’s disciplinary code and social media policy, which require officers to conduct themselves in a manner that maintains public trust and confidence.

Fired, grieved. Filing a grievance on the officer’s behalf contesting the termination, the union argued that the employer’s investigation was flawed and lacked due process. The union asserted that the employer failed to verify the authenticity of the social media posts and did not allow the officer an adequate opportunity to respond before imposing discipline. It further contended that the officer’s posts were personal expressions of opinion protected under the First Amendment and that there was no evidence that his online activity had interfered with his ability to perform his job. The union also argued that progressive discipline should have been applied rather than immediate termination, particularly given the officer’s seventeen years of service without prior discipline.

Unique role, jeopardized trust. In response, the employer argued that police officers are held to higher ethical and professional standards due to their unique role in maintaining law and order. The employer emphasized that the officer’s social media posts promoted discrimination, bigotry, and the use of excessive force, which jeopardized public trust and compromised the department’s integrity. It also noted that community confidence in law enforcement is essential, and an officer who expresses hostile views toward racial, religious, and marginalized groups creates serious credibility and liability concerns. The employer rejected the argument for progressive discipline, stating that the officer’s comments were so egregious that termination was the only appropriate remedy.

Offensive and dehumanizing language. Ultimately, the arbitrator found that the employer conducted a fair and thorough investigation and that the officer admitted to making the posts in question. The arbitrator determined that many of the posts contained offensive and dehumanizing language, including statements endorsing police brutality and racial discrimination, which directly violated the department’s Social Media Directive and Conduct Unbecoming standard in the disciplinary code. While acknowledging the officer’s length of service and clean disciplinary record, the arbitrator concluded that the posts demonstrated an irreversible breach of public trust, and that reinstatement would be untenable.

Just cause found. The grievance was denied, and the arbitrator ruled that the employer had just cause to terminate the officer. The ruling reinforced that police officers must uphold public confidence and professional integrity both on and off duty. The arbitrator concluded that the officer’s conduct irreparably damaged his credibility, and that the employer acted within its discretion in terminating him without applying progressive discipline.

Attorneys: Michael Connors for the City of Philadelphia. Frank D’Angelo for Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5.

Companies: City of Philadelphia; Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge