The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.

Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.

Protected labor activities are protected in the US by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, not by the Constitution.

What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made publicly, they would probably be fired outright for making public statements about the employer without permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired outright, but they will likely be passed over for promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed to terminate for.

The difference is, one is a private company that you are gainfully employed at of your own volition. The other is a public school that students are legally obligated to attend. The two have nothing to do with each other.

> How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?

I thought that letters had a copyright? The recipient has ownership but cannot publish. If they do copy and distribute (as a screenshot of a Snapchat message) does this not break copyright?

Edit: In New Zealand (where I am), an employer screenshooting and distributed an employee’s Facebook messages breached privacy laws. https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366

Copyright generally doesn't protect usage of a work in criticism of it, even if it is basically verbatim usage without added commentary. I think Hughes v. Benjamin is salient here.

I believe that I have not made my point clearly: simply, you should not be fired for that letter.

The snap self-destructs. The correct analogy would be showing a photo of the letter to others.

The by-default ephemeral nature?