Ask FELTG: Can an agency fire an employee for a post the employee made on social media?

May 6, 2025

You betcha, as long as the agency proves the charge, justifies the penalty, and shows nexus.

Take a look at the recent MSPB case Hendricks v. DHS, SF-0752-20-0074-I-2 (Mar. 27, 2025)(NP). The agency removed a GS-13 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (BPA) for conduct unbecoming a supervisory BPA, because of his posts on a private Facebook group page (called “I’m 1015”) that only a specific group of CBP employees could access. The posts were “unprofessional, derogatory, racially derisive, graphic, and harassing.” Id. at 2.

The initial decision included a thorough discussion of the 6 specifications the deciding official sustained:

  • Specification 1: You posted an image of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s face with open mouth being forced by President Donald Trump onto his crotch. In the caption of the picture you stated: “That’s right b*tches. The masses have spoken and today democracy won. I have returned. To everyone who knows the real me and had my back I say thank you. To everyone else? This is what I have to say ….” Above the face of President Trump, your name was written. Over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex’s face was written “10-15.”
  • Specification 3: You posted a picture of a woman looking straight towards the viewer with the caption, “Here we have two people who love riding d*ck, staring at each other.” You tagged A[CON] to your posting.
  • Specification 4: You posted a picture of two bare-chested men with the words “All About Brojobs.” You tagged A[CON] and W[IDA] to the post, writing, “A[CON] and W[IDA] are all about these.”
  • Specification 5: You posted a picture of a woman in a bikini holding a sign that said, “I need feminism because I should be able to wear what I WANT and not be afraid of the possibility to get raped!” You tagged A[NOZ] to the picture when you wrote as a caption: “Well? Tell your mom I appreciate her optimism lol. A[NOZ]”
  • Specification 6: You posted a picture of a slightly injured finger with the caption: “CPC be like ‘We can’t accept him. You should have taken this guy directly to the hospital.'” The image with text posted by the appellant suggested that the Central Processing Center (CPC) will not “accept” an alien with a small cut to a finger.
  • Specification 7: On or about May 21, 2019, while on duty, you created and posted a poll in the Facebook page “I’m 10-15.” As a caption to the poll you wrote: “The whole Pay Reform thing is old. Agents who continually bring it up while still making over 110k a year just sound like whiney little bitches at this point.”

Initial decision at 8-27 (lightly edited for length and redundancy).

The administrative judge sustained specifications 1, 6, and 7 and upheld the removal. The appellant argued, among other things, that his postings constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. Id at 3.

The Board held that although specifications 6 and 7 presented a more complicated constitutional question related to the First Amendment, the conduct described in specification 1 did not constitute protected speech, and that alone was sufficient to sustain the agency’s overall charge and removal penalty.

The First Amendment question can be complicated and the initial decision contains a thorough and informative discussion, so I’d recommend a read if this is an issue your agency is facing. [email protected]

Related training:

The information presented is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.