What I had read was that she was fired for violating the company's social media policy. Someone mentioned that she had put the photo on her own social media accounts, so that might be the source of it, though I didn't see that in an article. If that's it, it would seem easy to prove. But even if it is some vague bs reason of immoral behavior, Virginia is still an at-will state and employees can be fired for any reason other than discrimination. So, I find it easy to side with them from a legal perspective without some substantial justification for why the lady has been wronged. We have a lot of BJ Armstrong's here who know about these rights that don't exist. The company does not have to prove that their reason to fire her was justified; the burden is on the employee to demonstrate that the termination was illegal.
Company policy is irrelevant. At-will means they can fire her for anything beyond the protected classes listed and she can't sue them. Her unemployment benefits hinge on her violating company policy however. Someone mentioned to me if she was a valuable employee, they wouldnt have fired her. I think there is merit to this comment, however irrelevant to the story. If she preemptively took this to HR, I suspect she knew she ****ed up .. .but again, irrelevant to the story. People get fired for worse things ... like for their religion, the skin color and sexuality.
Again, what is the company policy and what does it state? My company also has social media policies and you can also get terminated for your actions. But that will only happen if you somehow made comments or actions on BEHALF of your company. If she did not mentions anything about her company on that post, she is free to do so as that is her personal opinion. Additionally, "political opinions" is part of anti-discrimination law.
I think a private company can fire her for any or no reason. If I were in charge, I would not fire her because I care about freedom of speech (with the one caveat that if I had a fiduciary duty and it was proven to me that not firing her would hurt the bottom line, I would need to bow to the will of the market).
This is debate and discussion - I am just asking you to explain why one situation with the liberal it's about them being a "p***y" and with a conservative it's about "PC". Sounds like you know you don't have an answer so you are punting. Ok then.
Legally - there's no question here. It's completely legal to fire her for her actions. The reason I posted this wasn't to debate the legality, but rather juxtapose this with the Google employee who was fired for expressing views that were controversial. This woman made a political statement outside of work which presumably could cause her employer grief. Google fired this guy because it didn't want the grief as well. Essentially the same rationale in firing. Yet in once case - Google's firing was consider an example of PC culture and censorship, in this case, it's consider her fault. That's what I am curious about - why the seemingly different standards of judgement?
I would have loved to hear the conversations going on in the motorcade when they saw her flip them off. Somehow I think there might have been a little laughing going on in one of the limos, and some b****ing and profanities coming from Trump's limo. It could have been worse. If she flipped off some drivers in Houston she might have been beat down or gunned down.
But she's not speaking for the company on her private time. She's a private citizen off the clock. It's scary to think that our society's employability and livelihood are dictated by what rules our employer can enforce. As an employer, you have to realize your employees are still people and you have to allow them to be themselves off the clock as long as it does not affect their work performance. Employers shouldn't be able to make rules for employees off the clock. A good employer who respects their employees and stands up for them will garner loyalty and extra productivity. Employers who see their employees as replaceable assets will create a toxic work culture where those employees will look to jump ship at the next best opportunity.
Why should a business be restrained from employing whoever they choose for whatever reason they choose? Does the employee have a right to that job? What about the reverse, can an employee quit because the employer is doing something they don't approve of? Shouldn't the employee realize that the boss/owner is still a person and you have to allow them to be themselves off the clock? The employee/employer relationship should be one of mutual agreement that either can terminate at any time if they don't want the relationship to continue. Neither party should be able to force the other to continue their relationship. A free and voluntary exchange of labor for remuneration is the only way to go.
She had the right to do it This is why you don't put your company name on anything social media etc You give away so much info . . .it will be used against you Rocket River
