Hawkins v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Donald Hawkins (plaintiff) worked as a probationary officer at a Maryland correctional institution. Hawkins presented his payroll check for cashing at a bank at which he had no account and on which the check was not drawn. The teller directed Hawkins to another bank. After receiving cash-checking authorization from a service representative, Hawkins said loudly, “Hitler should have gotten rid of all you Jews.” When the teller motioned to another teller that she was not Jewish, Hawkins added, “and all the Poles too.” A state official reported the incident to the correctional institution’s personnel officer. Hawkins’s employment was terminated. Hawkins appealed to the secretary of personnel, arguing that the termination violated his First Amendment rights. The personnel officer testified that the institution had a diverse population and Hawkins’s behavior at the bank was the kind of conduct that could escalate tensions in the institution. The secretary’s designee, concluding that Hawkins’s remarks were personal abuse and not protected by the First Amendment, upheld the dismissal. Hawkins appealed to the circuit court, which held that Hawkins’s remarks were not of public concern but remanded the case to the secretary to determine whether Hawkins’s comments adversely affected the state’s ability to perform its functions. The security director testified that Hawkins’s reaction in a low-stress situation suggested the conduct could occur in a tenser situation in the institution and spark a major disturbance. The secretary found that failure to respect an inmate’s race had led to disruption of the institution’s operations, and if Hawkins’s comments were known within the institution, they would adversely affect the institution’s operation and Hawkins’s performance of his job. The circuit court affirmed the secretary’s findings. Hawkins appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari. Hawkins argued that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment and that he was dismissed because of the reaction to his politically incorrect speech rather than any detriment to the institution’s efficient operation.