It dawned on me this morning that I have never really asked the 20,000 people on our blog list what you all think about the articles we are writing every week and the associated podcast episodes. For the past 17 or so years, we have been producing insightful and informative articles to help you better understand the complexity of employment and constitutional law issues that surround us every day at work. Our point of view is from the trenches, armed in dystopian combat, not some lofty ivory tower. Our approach is neutral, straight down the middle but veering off to one side occasionally when the issue is obvious. Topics range from severance negotiations, forced arbitration, to asserting first amendment rights outside of work.
Yes, my intentions are very clear. I enjoy stirring the pot regarding employment issues, because I can and because there is just too little discussion about this enormous time expenditure we call working. If you get something out of our articles that helps you deal with work issues or as attorneys (and there are a lot of you on this list) (and “honorable guests”) we help you expand the scope of view on employment law, then let us know what you think. This morning’s epiphany was really a question. What are other people thinking about the same topics we are writing about? Speech is free, express your opinion and get the discussion going. You can bet I will write about the responses you all provide.
We invite you to let us know by a variety of ways. All of the responses will help us understand what is important to you and what is not.
Send us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with your comments and opinions about what’s on your mind.
Hey, you can even pick up the phone and call me directly at the office (203) 255-4150.
Please share our blog and podcast with your friends and like our facebook page.
If you feel our articles and podcasts have helped you figure out your own employment issues without using an attorney, great! I would really like to know, please post a review on our website Carey & Associates, P.C., (www.capclaw.com) and thank you in advance!
Have a great weekend!
Regards, Mark Carey
Podcast explores freedom of speech by political activists on January 6, 2021 when they stormed the Capital Building and their employer’s reaction – immediate termination of an at-will employee.
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com or email at email@example.com.
The content of this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor create an attorney-client relationship. Carey & Associates, P.C. makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy of the information contained on this website or to any website to which it is linked to.
By Chris Avcollie
In 1849, Henry David Thoreau was imprisoned for an act of civil disobedience. Thoreau had broken local laws by refusing to pay a poll tax which he found to be unconscionable. The story goes that when Thoreau’s friend Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Thoreau in jail he asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” To which, Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”
Even in a free country, there are often profound consequences attached to the exercise of political conscience. On January 6, 2021 hundreds of pro-Trump protestors stormed the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to stop the congressional certification of the electoral college vote which elected Joe Biden as our next President. While the protestors themselves probably believed that their actions were justified or motivated by conscience, those who occupied the Capitol and participated in the riot that terrorized the nation and caused at least five deaths and many more injuries have been properly branded as criminals and insurrectionists.
But what do their employers think of their actions? And can their employers punish them for their activity?
Major news outlets reported on January 8, 2021 that a number of those individuals who participated in the siege on the Capitol have been identified by their employers and terminated from their jobs for their participation in the violent assembly. (See, https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-ceos-fire-rioters-call-for-president-trumps-removal-from office-11610070410 ). One employee of a Maryland based marketing company was prominently photographed wearing his employee name badge inside the Capitol during the riot. This employee was promptly terminated from his job “for cause.”
While the man wearing his company’s name badge was photographed inside the Capitol during the siege, several other employees were “forced” or at least asked to resign from their positions for their participation in the assembly, although they claimed that they only engaged in peaceful protest outside the building. Its not clear whether those employees would have been fired if they had not resigned.
Do employers have the right to terminate someone who is engaged in peaceful protest? What about not-so-peaceful protest? Why does an employer get to punish an employee for his or her political activity at all? Does the employer’s right to terminate kick in only when there is criminal activity associated with the protest? While many may not agree with the ideology that motivated the insurrection on January 6th, it is important to remember that Gandhi, Martin Luther King Junior and Thoreau also broke laws in the course of their political activism. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, why does an employer get to judge its employee’s political activism and mete out punishment for it?
Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that employers have wide latitude to limit employee’s speech, both political and otherwise, that might offend other workers or impact the business.(See, https://capclaw.com/wsj-article-is-political-speech-protected-in-the-workplace-heres-what-you-need-to-know-quoting-mark-carey/ ). The general rule is that the First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting speech not private employers. While government employees have some limited free speech rights outside the workplace (i.e. when the speech is of public concern and not related to the employment), most employers have a great deal of discretion in terminating employees for public activism both in and outside of work. Vaguely worded “employee codes of conduct” and other arbitrary company decrees are used to terminate employees who violate management’s sensibilities. (See, https://capclaw.com/the-employees-field-guide-to-protesting-what-you-need-to-know-before-the-rally/ ). While some states such as Connecticut have passed laws that seek to protect First Amendment rights, if the employer believes that the speech or activity interferes with job performance or the workplace relationships, the speech is not protected.
Where an employee’s political activism involves actual civil disobedience, the law protects an employer’s right to terminate an employee for criminal conduct. While thirty-six states have enacted “Ban the Box” (BTB) laws which prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s past criminal convictions on a job application, (some 30% of adult Americans have a criminal background of some kind) there is no law prohibiting an employer from conducting a background check after the interview or hiring process and refusing to employ someone with a criminal record. Bottom line: if an employer does not like what you did, they do not have to employ you.
While many may believe that the right to protest publicly and in defiance of laws one thinks are unjust is a right enshrined in the Constitution and the laws of our country, it is important to remember that that right does not include the right to be employed by a company or boss that disagrees with your views. While Americans may still enjoy the right to protest, we do not enjoy a right to be employed while doing so. As long as the law allows the “employment at will” rule to govern the employment relationship, all employees should be cautioned that public political protest often has a steep economic cost. Before you head out to “stick it to the man,” just remember the man can still “stick it to you” in the end.
If you would like more information about this topic, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
By Fran Slusarz
It always surprises people when they learn that they really don’t have a right to say whatever they want at work or outside work. We all have rights to free speech under the First Amendment, but what that means is often misunderstood. Everyone’s heard, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” but what does that mean for everyone who doesn’t work in crowded theaters?
Answer: not a heck of a lot.
What the First Amendment Is and Is Not
First, take a look at what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” The First Amendment is only concerned with what the government does. Government employers have protection for speech made in their capacity as private individuals, but not in their roles as government employee. If a government employee’s freedom of speech is abridged, the employee can bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But your private employer? The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Private individuals and private companies can do what they want. Even terminate your employment.
This may seem counterintuitive – how can you be fired for doing something that is 100% legal and enshrined in the Constitution? Simple: just because the government cannot stop you from doing something does not mean your employer has to like it. For example, you can be a member of the KKK and the government cannot stop you and your brother klansmen from putting on pointy hoods, and sharing secret handshakes and racist screeds (one assumes). When your employer finds out, however, she can fire you because she finds your beliefs repugnant. Many who stomped around Charlottesvillle, Virginia, shouting Nazi slogans learned this the hard way.
But this same rule works against people who are bringing attention to concerns more in line with American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For example, in 2017, Lisa Durden, a college professor, was fired for appearing on Fox News and defending a Black Lives Matter party to which only Black people were invited. There’s no question that her statements were protected by the First Amendment, but some of her statements were viewed as inflammatory, outrage was duly sparked, and her employer wanted to distance itself from her.
Don’t Embarrass Your Employer
Like it or not, we are all ambassadors for our employers and how we act/what we do reflects on them. We live in a world where the Internet can find you in hours, as certain self-involved dog owner and bullying cyclist recently learned. Both lost their jobs because their actions reflected upon their employers, and their employers wanted nothing to do with them.
These are outrageous examples that illustrate an important lesson. If keeping your job is important to you, you must consider how publicly exercising your right to free speech reflects on your employer. A vocal gun control advocate can’t expect to keep his marketing job at Smith & Wesson.
If You’re Not the Designated Spokesperson, Don’t Speak for your Company
This seems obvious, but it includes not doing or saying anything that would make anyone else think that you are speaking for the company. For example, if you work for UPS, doff the brown uniform before you join the protest rally. Don’t hold a sign that says, “Company X Employees Against World Peace.”
Before law school, I worked in human resources for a Fortune 10. One day, all hell broke loose because a vice president of training and development wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal on company letterhead, which WSJ printed. His letter included references to “gritty inner-city streets” and addressed racial issues. He was lucky. It was the late 90s and the hubbub was almost all internal. If that were today, he would have been fired the day after WSJ published his letter.
Nevermind Your Privacy Settings, Everything on the Internet is Public
This is where people make the most mistakes. You may think you are just venting to a group of friends and no one else will see it, but anything can be forwarded, or screenshot, or found in a Google search. Don’t write anything you wouldn’t want your boss to read and you don’t want published on The Daily Beast. If you’re unsure, stick with cat memes.
Last year, agents of U.S. Customers and Border Patrol discovered that their “private” Facebook group, where they shared jokes about dead migrants and sexist memes, wasn’t at all private. Various punishments ensued and Congress is investigating the group. This is not a good look on anyone. That any of the more active members are still employed is only because they are government employees and are entitled to due process. Private employees are not.
Back to Fairness, Why Isn’t What You Say “Off the Clock” Protected?
By design, the Constitution concerns itself only with what the government can and cannot do. The idea was that if the government involves itself too deeply in the day-to-day conduct of people’s lives, it is akin to tyranny. So, we are left with an imperfect situation where white supremacist groups are protected the same as pro-democracy groups, and your private employer can fire you for involvement in either.
Still, that doesn’t feel right. Is it possible to work around it, and protect employment rights for private employees who are exercising their First Amendment rights?
Answer: Yes. Some federal statutes already protect some speech, and some states protect employees engaged in political activity.
OSHA, the NLRB, and Whistleblower Laws
As I discussed in my articles about preparing to return to work in CovidWorld and Whistleblower Laws, you have the right to a safe workplace and the right report unsafe working conditions without fear of reprisal. You also have the rights to discuss the terms and conditions of your employment with your co-workers and engage in concerted activity to change the terms and conditions. These protections are limited as to the subjects upon which you can speak, and to whom, but it is something.
Some states have passed laws that specifically protect employees from adverse action based on pollical activity. Connecticut comes right out and prohibits discipline or discharge of an employee for exercising First Amendment Rights, provided the activity does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or the working relationship between the employer and the employee. Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah prohibit workplace discrimination based on “lawful conduct outside of work.” California and New York prohibit discrimination for “recreation activities” outside work, which can include attending political events. A handful of other states protect employees engaged in “political activities,” based on their party membership, and based on their “political opinions.”
In the current divisive political environment, it is unlikely that the federal government will pass a law adding employment protection for political activity, but laws change to reflect the people’s beliefs. Twenty years ago, marriage equality seemed like an impossibility. By 2004, same sex marriage was legal in Massachusetts, followed by Connecticut’s civil union law in 2005. Over the next 10 years, same sex marriage became legal in state after state, until the watershed moment in 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be legal throughout the United States.
A sea change of societal acceptance over 15 years, from something considered virtually impossible to something legal and generally accepted by most Americans is unprecedented. But don’t be discouraged. Pressure from the general public is already causing businesses to rethink their policies about political speech at work.
Earlier this month, Starbucks suffered serious social media backlash when it was learned they instructed employees that they could not wear Black Lives Matter shirts or paraphernalia because it might amplify divisiveness. Starbucks has since announced the creation of its own Black Lives Matter t-shirts for its employees to wear. Last week, when a Taco Bell franchise employee claimed he was fired for wearing a Black Lives Matter face mask, Taco Bell was quick to respond, apologizing for the action, stating that its employees are allowed to wear Black Lives Matter masks and that it supports the Black Lives Matter movement. I doubt any of us could have imagined this reaction three years ago, when Lisa Durden was fired.
One thing is certain, support for free speech protection for private employees is gaining traction in the United States. We certainly live in interesting times.
If you would like more information about this topic please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150 or email to email@example.com.
The increase in private sector employment, rise of social media and caustic political climate have combined to create a slew of new issues surrounding the rights of private sector employees to express themselves outside the workplace.
Consider the highly publicized example of a New Jersey lawyer who was “outed” as a Democratic “ringleader” by a local Republican congressman for her off-duty political activism. The now former Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) sent a fundraising letter to a board member of the bank at which Saily Avelenda worked calling attention to her off-duty political activism, none of which was connected in any way with her employer. Frelinghuysen enclosed an article that quoted Avelenda with a handwritten warning that a member of one of the groups challenging him worked in his bank. Although Avelenda was not disciplined directly, her employer required that she write a statement to explain her political affiliations and activities. She resigned shortly after due to pressure she felt at work after having been targeted. Unfortunately, private employees in New Jersey are not protected against employer retaliation for off-duty political activity.
Contrary to common belief, the First Amendment protects only public sector workers from termination based on their political expression. While there is no federal law explicitly covering all off-duty political activism, the National Labor Relations Act protects private sector employees from retaliation for union-related political activity. However, “purely political” speech unrelated to union activity is not protected.
States Enact Prohibitions Against Interference
Although private employers are free to regulate most political speech in the workplace under federal law, many states, including North Dakota, Colorado, New York and California have enacted prohibitions against interference with an employee’s lawful off-duty political activities. In these states, employees cannot be discriminated against based upon their political affiliation or political activity.
What Is Considered Political Activity?
The very definition of “political activity” varies from state to state. While the majority of states consider voting rights to be protected as “political activity”, states such as New York have extended this definition to include running for public office, campaigning for a candidate for public office, and participating in fund-raising activities for the benefit of a candidate, political party or political advocacy group.
Connecticut Provides The Most Protection For Political Speech
Connecticut’s free speech statute is the nation’s most expansive in terms of the protection it affords private employees for political speech. Connecticut General Statute § 31-51q extends the same speech protections to public and private sector employees, prohibiting employers from disciplining or discharging them “on account of the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution . . . provided such activity does not substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer.”
The statute allows an employee who believes that he has been retaliated against for exercising his right to free speech to sue his employer. However, the language of the statute has been open to broad interpretation since it was enacted in the 1980’s. First, other than in the obvious situation of discharge or demotion, an employee must show that he has been subject to some form of discipline by his employer. Second, the employee must show that he was speaking on his own behalf as a private citizen, not in connection with his job.
How To Prove Your Freedom of Speech Was Violated
In addition, the employee must demonstrate that he was expressing himself on a matter of public concern, unrelated to any private dispute with the employer. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined a public concern as “something that is the subject of legitimate news interest” or an issue that is of value or concern to the public at the time of the statement. To be considered a matter of public concern, there must be an “expression of views”.
Not all politically related conduct involves a matter of public concern. For example, D.C. law only protects political activity that is related to affiliation with a recognized electoral political party. Therefore, an employer is not prohibited from firing an employee based on his political activities in connection with a non-electoral white supremacist organization, for instance. As one federal court reasoned, “political” speech is aimed at government conduct rather than merely expressing a hateful opinion about members of a particular social group.
The employee must then show causation: that the exercise if his right to free expression was “a motivating factor” in the discharge or discipline. If the employer claims that the action was based on reasons other than free expression, such as poor performance, the burden then shifts to the employee who must show that the employer’s explanation is a pretext, and that the real reason he was fired was for exercising his right to free speech.
Finally, an employee’s political expression is only protected to the extent that it does not “substantially or materially interfere” with the employee’s job performance or working employment relationship. An employer cannot be forced to keep an employee who is connected with a group espousing hateful ideology. Court have invariably presumed that such ideologies “substantially or materially interfere” with the workplace relationship by creating a hostile work environment for other employees and business associates.
To date, there is no Connecticut case law addressing the interference of off-duty political activities with a private employment relationship. However, in the context of government employment, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed the Supreme Court’s lead in concluding that unless the employer demonstrated “a vital interest” in firing employees based “on political belief and association, doing so plainly constituted an unconstitutional condition”. In the case of the employee who participates in hate speech off hours, his employer certainly has a “vital interest” in avoiding any association with such views, which would likely hurt the business.
If you believe you have suffered at work because of your political activities, contact our office (203) 255-4150, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org, and speak to one of our employment attorneys. You may be protected under the law, particularly if you work in Connecticut.