Opinion of employer firing employee for participating in Trump DC protest without violating the law

[Torie]

I am not asking about the legalities here, which are being litigated. I am asking whether you think such an action is right or wrong or something else from an ethical standpoint, the law aside. A codicil of this I guess would be if political opinion has some degree of nexus to the job, even if attenuated. Suppose the person was a receptionist at the DNC headquarters?

I put this up to see in part just how deeply into the political fabric the current extreme polarization has leached into other aspects of our life. Not that this site is representative of course of the society at large.

I bifurcated the poll by partisan or ideological leaning, with D a proxy for left of center whatever that mean, and R right of center. If you are an R, and hate Trump, and think he should be executed for his crimes (you get the drift), you might consider yourself a D for purposes of this poll. I leave that to you.

The litigation is described in the link below.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/27/can-california-employee-be-fired-for-attending-the-jan-6-protest-at-the-capitol/

[Ferguson97]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

[Person Man]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Montana is that 50th state.

People are upset about the riot and don’t want to business with people who were involved.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

[Ferguson97]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

One, I’m describing reality not taking a stance. Two, “pro-worker” sometimes means making sure an employee isn’t making his co-workers uncomfortable.

[SteveRogers]

Partisanship aside, susceptibility to “stop the steal” conspiracy theories raises legitimate concerns about an employee’s ability to carry out the duties of any job that requires critical thinking skills. 

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

One, I’m describing reality not taking a stance. Two, “pro-worker” sometimes means making sure an employee isn’t making his co-workers uncomfortable.

I can think of a number of things in a co-worker that might make me uncomfortable.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

One, I’m describing reality not taking a stance.

Don't try to be cute. Your post is a tacit endorsement and it's highly disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Two, “pro-worker” sometimes means making sure an employee isn’t making his co-workers uncomfortable.

This is frightening stuff. You want to give employers the right to fire people for attending a political rally. That's a very, very dangerous cession of power that will be very easily abused (and is abusive if applied to legal association with protest).

I posted somewhere somewhat-glibly about how American liberals aren't able to genuine moral outrage unless racism is involved. I didn't expect to see it laid out so plainly and explicitly this quickly.

[7,052,770]

Believing the election was "stolen" implies a degree of stupidity, or at least gullibility, that may make a person unsuitable for many jobs.

That goes beyond a mere political disagreement.

[RI]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

It's just the mask being pulled back. The left hasn't been "pro-worker" for quite a while.

[7,052,770]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

It's just the mask being pulled back. The left hasn't been "pro-worker" for quite a while.

I would never refer to myself as "pro-worker" because it implies people with employment are superior or more important than people without it.

Stay at home moms matter, too, which is why reforms need to be universal (like UBI) rather than burdened onto employers.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Typically this is not something that people in the ostensibly pro-worker party celebrate.

One, I’m describing reality not taking a stance. Two, “pro-worker” sometimes means making sure an employee isn’t making his co-workers uncomfortable.

This is not for the employer to decide.

That said...

It's just the mask being pulled back. The left hasn't been "pro-worker" for quite a while.

If by the left you mean the Democratic Party, it is the less anti-worker of the two parties and its current political movements are hardly "going mask off." In recent history, it probably moved the most against workers under the Clinton administration.

[It’s so Joever]

Traitors don’t deserve work.

[lfromnj]

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

If anyone actually read the article(unless you hate clicking on that icky reason link) you would find perhaps this isn't totally legal in California.

[jimrtex]

I am not asking about the legalities here, which are being litigated. I am asking whether you think such an action is right or wrong or something else from an ethical standpoint, the law aside. A codicil of this I guess would be if political opinion has some degree of nexus to the job, even if attenuated. Suppose the person was a receptionist at the DNC headquarters?

I put this up to see in part just how deeply into the political fabric the current extreme polarization has leached into other aspects of our life. Not that this site is representative of course of the society at large.

I bifurcated the poll by partisan or ideological leaning, with D a proxy for left of center whatever that mean, and R right of center. If you are an R, and hate Trump, and think he should be executed for his crimes (you get the drift), you might consider yourself a D for purposes of this poll. I leave that to you.

The litigation is described in the link below.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/27/can-california-employee-be-fired-for-attending-the-jan-6-protest-at-the-capitol/

Interesting in that the company in question Alight LLC is a human resources outsourcing firm.

[beaver2.0]

If she stayed outside the Capitol she should not be.  She protested for a dumb reason but that's her right.  I could see an argument if her videos were widely shared and she became a symbol of the protest but that does not seem to be the case here.

So the answer is no, she should not be fired for doing something dumb but not illegal.

[Lief 🗽]

Anyone who participated in this should be in prison. Failing that, unemployed and destitute is an acceptable compromise.

Sad to see all the little authoritarians in this thread who want the government to force private employers to employee seditionists and traitors.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Anyone who participated in this should be in prison. Failing that, unemployed and destitute is an acceptable compromise.

Sad to see all the little authoritarians in this thread who want the government to force private employers to employee seditionists and traitors.

It's authoritarian to suggest employers should decide who seditionists and traitors are (amongst their employees). They will misuse that power and it is even less accountable than the government's.

[Torie]

"Opinion of employer firing an employee for participating in Trump DC protest without violating the law"

Sigh.

[Badger]

I am generally opposed the concept of employment-at-will. With that in mine, after firing said employee I would gladly argue to any administrative review board that the fact she believed in a Nigerian prince email scam level conspiracy theory about the election being stolen calls into SERIOUS question our ability to trust her judgment going forward, even if she hadn't made a boneheaded mistake YET.

Likewise, her association in a protest heavily populated not just by conservatives or even hardcore Trump cultists, but with more than a smattering of overt white supremacist and anti-semites, plus a likely majority of qanon conspiracy theorists - - which is describing them quite charitably-- what's fundamentally disrupt the workplace of reasonable expectations of other employees having to work with her, as well as the reputation of our business for having such a person work there.

I'm sorry, but I can't begin to buy into the fake dichotomy that this is essentially no different than a red State employer firing someone pretending an anti-war rally in 2003. This is more akin for terminating someone for attending a KKK cross burning, even if she didn't actually light the match.

[Fight for Trump]

As long as they weren't doing anything illegal, they should not be fired. If you are to protest something, where else is a more appropriate place than outside Congress itself?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

It's legal, sure. But the optics and ethics bother me.  I mean, you could suspend without pay, pending investigation.  It would also be easier to swallow such "freedoms" by businesses if we decoupled healthcare from jobs and had a UBI system.

[Former President tack50]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Which is the lone remaining state that actually has some good employment laws? 

[Fight for Trump]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Which is the lone remaining state that actually has some good employment laws? 

Montana.

[Former President tack50]

49 states are at-will employment states. Legally they can be fired for any reason that isn’t a protected class violation.

Which is the lone remaining state that actually has some good employment laws? 

Montana.

Given its political leanings that is even more surprising. Good for Montana being the only sensible state!