Editor’s Note: This is a companion case to the case covered in the article “Wisconsin Deputy Warden Properly Fired For Denigrating Muslims” on p. 3 of the September 2025 issue of Public Safety Labor News.
Richard Schneiter began his career with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections in 1977 as a correctional officer. By 2011, he had risen to the role of Deputy Warden for the Wisconsin Correctional Center System. His responsibilities included monitoring facility operations, hiring and supervising staff, settling grievances, and serving as a liaison for the system. Approximately 30% of his duties involved direct interaction with inmates and the community.
In June 2019, Schneiter posted five memes to his personal Facebook page, which was set to “private” but accessible to his approximately 1,200 Facebook friends, including many DOC employees. The memes targeted and denigrated Muslims, Black people, liberals, and the LGBTQ+ community. One meme compared a Muslim child to garbage, while another referred to the Confederate flag as “our flag.” Schneiter did not create the memes but shared them from other accounts.
An anonymous tipster provided the memes to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which published an article on July 17, 2019, under the headline “Deputy Prison Warden Posts Facebook Meme that Compares Muslim Children to Garbage.” The same day, the DOC placed Schneiter on paid administrative leave and initiated an investigation.
During the ensuing investigation, Schneiter admitted to posting the memes but claimed his intent was to “get a conversation started” and “bring awareness to issues.” He acknowledged the memes “could be construed as discriminatory.” Investigators concluded that he had violated three departmental work rules: compliance with agency policies (by speaking to the media without authorization); a prohibition on intimidating, harassing, or demeaning treatment of others; and a prohibition on outside activities that could impair an employee’s judgment or ability to perform their duties.
After a pre-disciplinary meeting where Schneiter and his representative argued that the posts were meant to spark conversation on difficult topics, a Disciplinary Action Review Team recommended termination. DOC leadership approved the decision.
After exhausting state administrative remedies, Schneiter filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment and a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Schneiter appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.
On the First Amendment claim, the Court applied the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education. It first assumed that Schneiter spoke as a citizen on matters of public concern. The Court then weighed his speech interests against the government’s interests as an employer.
The Court found Schneiter’s interests were limited: he posted on his personal Facebook page during non-work hours to a limited audience, and the posts were not facially linked to his job. However, the Court held the DOC’s countervailing interests were “significant” and “weighty.” The Court emphasized the special deference afforded to law enforcement and corrections agencies in personnel matters due to the “paramount” concerns of “safety and order.” The DOC reasonably concluded that posts denigrating Muslims, Black people, and the LGBTQ+ community — populations Schneiter was required to supervise and manage — risked exacerbating tensions, causing unrest or violence in correctional facilities, and undermining his ability to lead a diverse staff impartially.
The Court rejected Schneiter’s argument that there was no evidence of actual disruption, noting that a public employer may act on a reasonable prediction of potential disruption and that placing him on leave may have prevented the very disruption the Department feared. The Court also found the Department’s interest in maintaining public confidence was a legitimate and compelling factor, especially for a high-ranking official like a deputy warden.
On the due process claim, Schneiter argued that the Department could not discipline him for his social media activity because it lacked a specific policy governing such speech. The Court flatly rejected this, holding that the Constitution does not require public employers to promulgate specific social media policies before disciplining employees for online conduct. The Department’s existing, broadly written work rules provided sufficient notice to a reasonable employee that the conduct was prohibited. The Court also dismissed Schneiter’s undeveloped claim of bias in the proceedings, finding it failed to overcome the “presumption of honesty and integrity” afforded to adjudicators.
Schneiter v. Carr, 148 F.4th 438 (7th Cir. 2025).