Man loses job, after attending Charlottesvile Rally Went Viral.

a reply to: amazing

Just ask Colin Kaepernick.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: amazing

Just ask Colin Kaepernick.

Yeah that's always weird to me. It's okay to blacklist a guy that kneels for the anthem but give the KKK and Nazis a free pass. Not sure the logic there.

a reply to: amazing

Actually some the same people who support this guy's firing have their panties in a twist because nobody's giving Kaepernick a job.

Equal free speech rights, only some are more equal than others.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: amazing

Actually some the same people who support this guy's firing have their panties in a twist because nobody's giving Kaepernick a job.

Equal free speech rights, only some are more equal than others.

Well taking a knee to protest the treatment of minorities in America compared to actual "Nazis" who exterminated 6 million Jews is pretty tame in comparison.

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.

Not to mention 'racism' with 'morals'.

So being a racist, is just a different set of morals now?

a reply to: kurthall

The business, Top Dog, is proudly Libertarian to the point of posting literature all over their walls espousing the owners world view..

The employee was never truly fired, but instead "resigned" after a discussion with the owner.

found this relevant cartoon about the limits of free speech...

xkcd.com...

a reply to: fiverx313

I read that earlier. It is spot on..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

Ah. So...Top Dog is illegally operating with regard to their employment practices (or skating a dangerous line), in California.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

California is a "right to work" state.
I had the impression that most Libertarian's love this..

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: MotherMayEye

California is a "right to work" state.

It is. Except California is one of three states that has specific laws prohibiting the discrimination of employees based on political affiliation and political activity.

Unlike many state and federal employees, most employees in America working for private employers do not have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity. (A public employer can, under certain circumstances, be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech.) Only a mere handful of states (California, New York, and Washington, DC) have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee's political activity or affiliation, while two more states (Colorado and North Dakota) prohibit discrimination on the basis of "lawful conduct outside of work."

workplacefairness.org

The specific codes:

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1101

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.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102
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.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102.6

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Link

***

So...in this case, it is the Top Dog Owners that have no legal right to impose their political opinions on their employees.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: MotherMayEye

California is a "right to work" state.
I had the impression that most Libertarian's love this..

It is. Except California is one of three states that has specific laws prohibiting the discrimination of employees based on political affiliation and political activity.

Unlike many state and federal employees, most employees in America working for private employers do not have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity. (A public employer can, under certain circumstances, be prevented from firing someone based on political speech (because that would constitute the government itself suppressing free speech.) Only a mere handful of states (California, New York, and Washington, DC) have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee's political activity or affiliation, while two more states (Colorado and North Dakota) prohibit discrimination on the basis of "lawful conduct outside of work."

workplacefairness.org

The specific codes:

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1101

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.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102
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.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102.6

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Link

***

So...in this case, it is the Top Dog Owners that have no legal right to impose their political opinions on their employees.

A hate rally is not protected speech in this instance. Also.. He resigned.

a reply to: clay2 baraka

It was called "Unite the Right." It was, by all appearances, intended to be a political protest.

It was protected activity under California law.

Also, he resigned during the course of a conversation about his attendance at the *political* protest. It was unlawful for his employers to discuss it with him in context of what it meant about his employment. Yet they did and somehow he quit in the midst of that discussion -- ACCORDING TO TOP DOG.

Again...

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102.6

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Link

I don't think Top Dog could overcome that burden of proof:



Their public statement:

“On Saturday, August 12, it came to our attention that one of our employees was involved in the recent ‘alt-right’ rally in Charlottesville, North Carolina [sic]. Later that day we spoke with Cole White. During that conversation Cole chose to voluntarily resign his employment with top dog and we accepted his resignation,” the company wrote in a press release Monday.

“We pride ourselves on embracing and respecting all our differences and every individual’s choice to do as that person wishes within the boundaries of the law. We do not endorse hatred or any illegal conduct. It simply is not part of our culture.

We do respect our employees’ right to their opinions. They are free to make their own choices but must accept the responsibilities of those choices."

Link

Regardless of how heinous Cole White's political beliefs might be, he didn't do anything illegal by attending a political protest. And he should never have been questioned about it at work.

He probably has a meritorious wrongful termination/Tamney Claim lawsuit.