By: Deedee Bitran
Employers often hesitate to intervene when workplace conflict involves politically charged language, but that can be a mistake. At City College of San Francisco (“CCSF”), a union leader publicly berated Jewish professor Abigail Bornstein, calling her a “colonizer” and mocking her Jewish sounding last name. The case, in which StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center represented Professor Bornstein pro bono, establishes a critical principle for employers everywhere: identity-based harassment, even when repackaged as “mere” political advocacy, can violate workplace policies.
CCSF adopted an independent investigator’s conclusion that the union leader verbally assaulted Professor Bornstein based on her Jewish identity and violated CCSF’s policies pertaining to discrimination, harassment and workplace violence.
Many employers default to a “free speech” analysis when confronted with complaints involving terms like “colonizer” or rhetoric tied to the Israel-Hamas war. That instinct may be understandable in many cases but is often legally incorrect. As an initial matter, private employers are not subject to the First Amendment and have more latitude in regulating speech in the workplace than public employers. Unlike private employers, which are not subject to the First Amendment but remain subject to federal, state, and local civil rights laws, public employers like CCSF must comply with both the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII and state and local counterparts. Although public employers must carefully balance First Amendment considerations with their obligations under civil rights laws, courts have long recognized that the Constitution does not require employers to tolerate workplace speech that undermines equal employment protections or creates a hostile work environment. Florida law reflects this principle. Almost 50 years ago, in Cowell v. Fuller, 362 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recognized that public employers can discipline employees for antisemitic remarks in the workplace. In that case, a government employer disciplined an employee for making antisemitic remarks to a Jewish employee, and the court explained that “[t]he government as an employer has a legitimate interest in limiting certain employee speech on the job for the purpose of promoting harmonious relationships between its employees.” Id. at 130.
While Professor Bornstein’s matter is based in California, its lessons apply directly to employers nationwide, including Florida. Even when speech is repackaged as political advocacy, employers should intervene when it targets employees based on identity components, such as religion or national origin. Failure to act in such situations is not neutrality; rather, it is potential legal exposure.
In Professor Bornstein’s case, the combination of calling Professor Bornstein a “colonizer” and mocking her Jewish surname was central to the finding of harassment. In Florida workplaces, similar conduct — whether directed at Jewish employees or any other protected group — can potentially support hostile work environment claims or trigger retaliation claims if complaints are ignored.
One of the most important takeaways is that employers cannot simply defer to “free speech” principles and ignore complaints about workplace antisemitism. Courts consistently distinguish between general political expression and targeted harassment directed at an individual. See Garrett v. City Univ. of New York, No. 24-CV-9710, 2025 WL 3096550, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025) (analyzing harmonizing the interests protected by Title VII and the First Amendment and noting that Title VII reaches targeted personal harassment). Professor Bornstein’s case reinforces that when speech becomes identity-based and targets a Jewish employee, it may lose First Amendment protection in the workplace context.
Florida employers should treat this case as a compliance roadmap. First, employers should train management to recognize modern antisemitism and familiarize themselves with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA Definition provides examples of contemporary antisemitism and is a definitional tool that has been adopted by over 1100 groups (government bodies, educational institutions, religious and social institutions), including many U.S. states and agencies within the federal government. It helps ensure that antisemitic bias can be more easily understood, exposed, and addressed. Second, employers should enforce their workplace policies consistently. Selective enforcement (e.g., tolerating antisemitic conduct while addressing other forms of bias immediately) creates legal risk. Third, employers should act promptly to address employee complaints by documenting, investigating, and taking corrective action.
Ultimately, the lesson for employers is straightforward: do not wait until identity-based harassment becomes overtly physical or explicitly religious to act. When workplace language targets an employee’s identity, whether through labels, stereotypes, or coded rhetoric, it can create a hostile work environment and trigger legal liability. Calling something “political” does not neutralize its impact or excuse inaction. In today’s climate, where antisemitism and other forms of bias are increasingly expressed in indirect ways, employers must be proactive, not reactive. The question is no longer whether such conduct is acceptable. Rather, it is whether employers will act before it becomes a legal and moral failure.