It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Echo007
Let me guess most of you agree with schools suspending kids for things they say or do off school grounds, including comments they make on facebook etc. Did that person express his views while working or on the business property, no he didn't. Did he say the business he works for has the same views as he does, no he didn't.
Where's the which hunt for all the Black Lives Matters protesters who burned down private property. Where are all the SJW trying to find out if they have a job or not to shame them.
originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: kurthall
I think it should be up to the business owner. It's a slippery slope however, because the opposite could be true. Should a Catholic business owner be able to fire an employee he finds out is a Satanist? Is gay? Had an abortion? Is living with his/her significant other without being married?
I've never heard a follow up but was the college professor that was outed hitting people with a bike chain at an Anti-fa rally get fired?
Living with a significant other without being married? I have no idea on the legality of this. If the person is doing his job, it would be a stupid reason to fire him, though.
originally posted by: Jefferton
originally posted by: Butterfinger
Firing someone because of morals is akin to firing gayfolk, or single mothers.
That was a pretty scumbag comment. You equate nazi's with single mothers(not always a choice), and gays(not a choice).
Pretty telling on *your* morals.
originally posted by: chopperswolf
Isn't it workplace discrimination to fire someone based on their religious, racial , cultural, or political beliefs, especially if said beliefs are not directly being promoted in the workplace, I think there is a Federal law against this. I think this Employer may be looking at a large legal struggle if the Employee decides to pursue charges of racial discrimination.
originally posted by: Echo007
Let me guess most of you agree with schools suspending kids for things they say or do off school grounds, including comments they make on facebook etc. Did that person express his views while working or on the business property, no he didn't. Did he say the business he works for has the same views as he does, no he didn't.
Where's the which hunt for all the Black Lives Matters protesters who burned down private property. Where are all the SJW trying to find out if they have a job or not to shame them.
originally posted by: Echo007
Let me guess most of you agree with schools suspending kids for things they say or do off school grounds, including comments they make on facebook etc. Did that person express his views while working or on the business property, no he didn't. Did he say the business he works for has the same views as he does, no he didn't.
Where's the which hunt for all the Black Lives Matters protesters who burned down private property. Where are all the SJW trying to find out if they have a job or not to shame them.
originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
I don't know what rights employers have in the states but on principle I don't think somebody should be fired for standing up for their political views outside of work even if they are abhorrent.
Rights are rights, we shouldn't just recognise them for people we agree with.
WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
California is an “at will” employment state. Although an at will employee may generally be demoted or terminated for no reason, or even an arbitrary or irrational reason, there is no right to punish an employee for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes fundamental public policy. [Silo v. CHW Med Found. (2002) 27 Ca1.4th 1097, 1104.] According to the court which rendered the decision in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., an employer’s traditional authority to terminate an employee at will may be limited by statute or by considerations of public policy. [Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Ca1.3d 167, 172.] Therefore, this cause of action has also been widely referred to as a “Tameny claim.”
To establish a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, each of the following must be provided:
An employer-employee relationship existed;
The employer terminated the employee (or took other adverse employment actions);
The termination was a violation of public policy;
The termination was a legal cause of the employee’s injury; and
The employee suffered damages as a result of having been terminated.
[Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1426.]
A Causal Link Must Exist Between the Termination and the Employee’s Legally Protected Activity.
There must be a causal link between the employee’s protected activity and the termination. A causal link may be established by the employer’s knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities, and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision. [Jordan v. Clark (9th Cir. 1988) 847 F.2d 1368, 1376; Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69.] When adverse employment decisions are taken within a reasonable period of time after complaints of discrimination have been made, retaliatory intent may be inferred. [Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (99th Cir. 2000) 212 F.3d 493, 506; Mulhall v. Ashcroft (6th Cir. 2002) 287 F.3d 543, 551.] This proximity in time will establish “legal causation” between the termination, and the protected activity.
Legally protected activities includes, but are not limited to, complaining against, or reporting that the employer violated policy that benefits the public at large, such as:
Employment discrimination;
Violation of family or medical leave laws;
Unsafe workplace;
Refusing to sign covenants not to compete;
Terminating an employee for breaching a noncompete agreement with a former employer;
Refusing to release employer from liability for intentional acts;
Prompt payment of earned wages;
Whistleblowing regarding the misappropriation of public funds;
Disclosing improper practices affecting the public at large;
Testifying at a hearing;
Advocating appropriate medical care for a patient;
Discussing wages with co-workers;
Political activity;
Right to receive earned wages;
Right to overtime pay;
Right to workplace free of violence or credible threats of violence;
Right to apply for unemployment benefits;
Right to take family leave; or
Terminations for refusing to engage in unlawful conduct.