If You Run Social Media for a University, Don’t Misprint the Nickname of Its Team

From Hinckley v. Univ. of Wyoming, decided Aug. 28 by Judge Scott Skavdahl (D. Wyo.), but just recently posted on Westlaw (appeal pending):

{Unless otherwise noted, these facts are uncontested.} Plaintiff … alleges that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment as a Marketing and Communications Specialist I at University of Wyoming because of her gender and in retaliation for protected workplace conduct….

Shortly after starting in her new role, Plaintiff began to display job performance issues, including being late to work, treating others poorly, and making mistakes. Some of these performance issues may have been due to the lack of oversight and direction supplied by [Marketing Manager] Cattelan, but Cattelan was not Plaintiff’s supervisor. Nevertheless, Plaintiff made numerous mistakes that were not a result of Cattelan’s lack of guidance or oversight.

For example, in November 2023, Plaintiff was asked to prepare a press release to celebrate a UW Professor who had received a national award. The professor met with Plaintiff, but found Plaintiff’s draft inadequate due to “poor writing quality and lack of accuracy.” Plaintiff responded combatively to the feedback and the press release was never published.

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff posted the post [the first one in the image above -EV] to the College of Business’ social media (Instagram). The post failed to meet College of Business brand standards and contained a significant spelling error, reading “Go Polks!” instead of “Go Pokes!” (hereinafter, the “first social media error”). Cattelan highlighted this error as particularly concerning given that Plaintiff is an alumna of the University of Wyoming….

For more, you can read the long opinion. But here’s the heart of the matter, which is followed by the image that I placed at the top of the post:

Defendant has articulated several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination…. Plaintiff fails to show Defendant’s stated reasons for terminating her were a mere pretext or that she incurred disparate treatment….

While Plaintiff disputes some of the characterization of these, the vast majority of incidents of Plaintiff’s poor job performance are undisputed or admitted. She does not dispute the numerous social media errors were her fault. Plaintiff admits she received the university’s brand book and she contends that her work followed the brand and voice of the College of Business.  Yet, no reasonable jury could find her social media posts adhered to COB brand guidelines. The failure to follow the brand guidelines is as simple as “Coca-Cola” versus “Pepsi” [a separate social media error that the court describes elsewhere -EV] or “Polks” v. “Pokes.” …