Dear ACLU Leadership and Supporters,
The ACLU has always been at the forefront of defending individual rights, particularly the right to free speech. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the sanctity of this right does not extend to permitting abuse of power in workplaces. Free speech ends where harm begins, and the Supreme Court has long recognized limits on speech that incite violence or threats or create an unsafe environment. The same principles should apply to speech that creates and perpetuates a toxic work environment, which is, fundamentally, an abuse of power manifesting as psychological harassment.
Supporting anti-bullying legislation like the Workplace Psychological Safety Act aligns with the ACLU's broader mission to foster a just society. This act is a commitment to protecting individuals not only from overt discrimination but also from the insidious trauma that stems from continuous psychological abuse in professional settings. This trauma is pervasive, with millions of Americans reporting significant impacts on their mental and physical health due to workplace bullying. By endorsing this legislation, the ACLU could advocate for a proactive approach to safeguard individuals' rights to dignity and safety as essential components of their civil liberties.
Instead, Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown argued that free speech is to be protected even when individuals are harmed. In doing so, he dismissed testimony expressing acts of workplace abuse deemed more traumatic than wartime combat, and he erased the disproportionate number of marginalized groups, including the very people the ACLU claims to support, who endure far greater workplace harassment than others. He centered his concerns on employer liability and defended his position on a variety of unclear grounds. This was, in our view, a blanket rejection of fairness that appears inconsistent with ACLU positions on a variety of civil rights issues.
Workplaces are already required to impose restrictions on speech. There are consequences for individuals who threaten physical harm to others on the job. And discrimination laws can hold employers accountable for bosses who harass employees based on protected characteristics. This bill, to be clear, is simply stating that current discrimination law falls short of protecting vulnerable employees; it falls short of protecting us all.
Based on the national ACLU’s response to recent changes in EEOC guidance, one would think that this organization would support such an act. In a public letter to the EEOC Executive Secretariat dated November 1, 2023 and signed by multiple senior staff, the organization applauded the Commission’s rigorous, thoughtful approach to ensuring the dignity and safety of millions of workers. The authors also state that, “We believe that carefully crafted, non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies can protect workers from abuse while also preserving core free speech rights.”
If Mr. Brown believed that the Workplace Psychological Safety Act failed to meet the ACLU’s requirements for being carefully crafted in such a manner that was consistent with the organization's core philosophies, he failed to note this in his testimony. And we now seek to engage the broader ACLU community of nearly 3 million supporters to ask where they stand on this critically important issue.
The members of End Workplace Abuse stand ready to protect millions of workers from abuse while preserving core free speech rights. And we invite every member of the ACLU community to join us.