Woman Fired After Giving Trump's Motorcade the Finger.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And, I am sure Akima has attorneys on retainer and would force her to take it to trial (but it would be tossed out immediately)...then they would make her pay court costs and legal expenses when she loses.

Perhaps, but Akima would look mean spirited taking on a mother of 3 and the press would have a field day and Akima could kiss those sweet govt. contracts good by.

imo...Akima is the one up against a rock and a hard place, not Juli.

If you say so.

If I read an article that said a court tossed out this hypothetical lawsuit for failure to state a claim...I wouldn't blame Akima or the court. I'd hope that the Plaintiff was sanctioned somehow and I'd be annoyed that she took any of the court's time and resources in 'bad faith.'

And that's what you are really suggesting...that this woman file a lawsuit in 'bad faith.' Courts do not look kindly on that.

a reply to: olaru12

So since she made a poor decision lawyers should be used and she should get a settlement? F that. Depends on her job and the contract she signed. A lot of times people do not read them and there are consequences.

She does not deserve a dime.

Oh, and this is not in defense of the POTUS. This is simply pointing out she made a bad decision. Deal with it.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Given another person who "broke" the policy didn't get fired, I'd say she has a chance for a payout.

Not unless she can prove she was singled out for belonging to a protected class....like being a woman. Otherwise, employers don't have to be 'fair.'

***

ETA: And I have read nothing that suggests she was fired based on sex/gender.

a reply to: matafuchs

Checking out potential employees is not only common, it's very necessary. It's prevented me from hiring a pedophile, a wife beater and a man with a long list of burglaries and violence, just to name a few. Anyone who does not check out who they are hiring is incompetent to say the least.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
It's prevented me from hiring a pedophile, a wife beater and a man with a long list of burglaries and violence, just to name a few.

I'll have you know that DB, TAT and I never applied at your place of employment. I blame the recruiter for this false rumor.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Exactly. I work in the HRMS industry and it is crazy when you the different hiring practices. They are not foolproof but they are very much needed. I was in one hiring meeting where during interview questions they asked the kid why he was not wearing his '420'' hat today? Look on his face was priceless.

Although this is pure speculation, if she acted the way she acted this time, then it probably was not the first time she acted that way. Sometimes employers have to wait for the right opportunity to get rid of troublesome employees. When the employee provides the chance, employers are quick to act. I have seen this happen in my own organization. As a manager there, one of our unspoken rules was, "Never refuse a resignation or try to talk someone out of it." Just graciously accept and thank your lucky stars.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Blaine91555
It's prevented me from hiring a pedophile, a wife beater and a man with a long list of burglaries and violence, just to name a few.

I'll have you know that DB, TAT and I never applied at your place of employment. I blame the recruiter for this false rumor.

Uh, admin actually offered me a job after the background search. But I was never there so I didn't take the job even though it was in Vegas where I've never been.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: intrptr

Freedom of speech only applies to the government, not private entities.

She didn't get arrested, she got fired, so it still applies.

Arresting her for flipping the bird would have been too obvious. But considering the way Trump called for execution of that soldier that went AWOL in Afghanistan, and his call to fire ball players for demonstrating during the National Anthem, my comment stands. We are entering a new era of civil 'rights'.

Let alone the rights of nations. His Executive comments about NK are over the Sovereign top.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: intrptr

Freedom of speech only applies to the government, not private entities.

She didn't get arrested, she got fired, so it still applies.

ETA: I don't love this meme, but it's the best I could find.

That said, I think firing her is pretty weak...but then I think she was pretty weak to go to HR to tell them about it. It's not like her face was visible in the photo. They would never have known if she wasn't so eager to get recognition for flipping the bird.

Do you think private employers in -at will states should be prevented from firing neo-nazis that are photographed protesting?

a reply to: intrepid

This gets on my nerves. She has every right to flip the finger at the president if she wants.

For too long political protest has meant blighting the lives of ordinary folks by blocking roads, haranguing them in restaurants and damaging their property.
What she did is the very essence of political protest and harms no one.
She didn't damage anything, inconvenience anyone, dox anyone or try and cost a person their livelihood, she flipped the finger. I hope the Prez finds out about this and gets her damn job back for her.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're right.

No argument from me.

But we should be supportive of free expression. Even if it's expression we don't agree with.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Agree. I hope you saw my edit to my comment though.

a reply to: SprocketUK

And she can do it again...just not while she works for Akima.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Do you think private employers in -at will states should be prevented from firing neo-nazis that are photographed protesting?

Check mate. Liberal heads exploding everywhere.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you think private employers in -at will states should be prevented from firing neo-nazis that are photographed protesting?

Back when-- a supervisor tried to fire me for hanging banners at work about company policy.

Employment was very clear, freedom of speech (expression) applies in Public, at home and in the work place.

Younger People don't know what Workers Unions are anymore , or strikes, picket lines, etc.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: intrptr

Freedom of speech only applies to the government, not private entities.

She didn't get arrested, she got fired, so it still applies.

No, it does not. All "Free Speech" means is that the government cannot restrain your speech in a public forum. The wording is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's it. It says nothing about private property or employment. It does not force other people to stay silent about what you said. It does not say a private employer can't fire you for what you said. It's just like here on ATS, where you also do not have free speech rights, as anyone who has been censored by the mods knows.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: intrepid

This gets on my nerves. She has every right to flip the finger at the president if she wants.

And she did it. No one prevented her from doing it -- she was not incarcerated or deprived of government benefits or had to pay income tax penalties....or anything like that.

One time GWB came to my city and his motorcade was scheduled to drive right in front of my house. My husband and I hung up some protest signs we made AND we flipped the bird as he drove by.

However, neither of us went to our HR departments to tell them we did that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you think private employers in -at will states should be prevented from firing neo-nazis that are photographed protesting?

Back when-- a supervisor tried to fire me for hanging banners at work about company policy.

Employment was very clear, freedom of speech (expression) applies in Public, at home and in the work place.

Younger People don't know what Workers Unions are anymore , or strikes, picket lines, etc.

Of course it applies "in Public, at home and in the work place."

However, it's always the government that protects it...never private individuals and employers.

Employment contracts and unions are another matter entirely.

Flipping the bird is just a physical representation of an opinion.

Her employer fired her for having an opinion.


Todays lesson?

Whether it's getting a ride from Uber, working for a defense contractor, saying a prayer at school, or baking a cake. . . . DON'T HAVE OPINIONS!

EVER!

Just shut the # up and behave.

Do your job.

Then, when the day is done, and the lights are off and the doors are locked. . . . you can voice your opinion.

Just not too loudly.