General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWoman who claims she was fired for flipping off Trump motorcade sues former employer
Woman who claims she was fired for flipping off Trump motorcade sues former employer
By Aileen Graef, CNN
(CNN)The woman who became internet famous in October for flipping the bird at President Donald Trump's motorcade, and then said she was subsequently fired, is suing her former employer for unlawful termination.
Juli Briskman was fired from the marketing team at Akima LLC in November shortly after she volunteered that she was the one who had made the gesture in a photo that went viral, she said at the time.
"I thought that it would probably get back to my company eventually," Briskman said in an interview with CNN's Jeanne Moos.
She said she was told she had violated the company's social media policy, and said the company in turn fired her.
Briskman tweeted Wednesday that "I was fired from my job for flipping off @realDonaldTrump. Today, I filed suit with @GellerLawyers & @protctdemocracy because what happened to me was unlawful and un-American."
more...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/woman-flipped-off-trump-sues/index.html?sr=fbCNN040518woman-flipped-off-trump-sues0649AMVODtop
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)wonderful if she is receiving Pro bono representation. This is just wrong legal or not.
oasis
(49,434 posts)"violated company's social media policy". Her bosses need to read th U.S. Constitution.
spanone
(135,915 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)restricts the government, not a private employer.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)My dh's company had federal contracts, and they could dictate procedures for hiring, but had no say in how or why a non-union class of employees could be terminated. (Except, of course, for race, religion, etc.)
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Contracts. Including employment policies.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)social media policy.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Deft movement for your goalposts from their original location.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)A company with government contracts does not become the government, as in "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ."
There are certain hiring policies that are affected when a company has a government contract, such as, dh's company had to send notifications to all applicants for any position when the position had been filled, not simply those who were interviewed. Whether they can dictate restrictions on a company's policies depends on the contract they have with the company. There are probably no contracts that will invalidate a company's social media policy.
Again, she was an at-will employee of a private company, and they can hire or fire for any reason they want, and Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with it.
If you think Freedom of Speech applies to private companies, try telling your boss he/she is a stupid motherf-er, and see what happens.
spooky3
(34,510 posts)Federal contractors are considered as private employers and not governmental units, with regard to free speech protections, for example.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Of laws and regulations and must abide. They must abide by those terms.
Many times the terms a company agrees to pertain to their employees and their own business practices.
spooky3
(34,510 posts)This further.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)same govt terms as the company that holds the contract.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You're apparently talking about a subcontractor. You're saying that the subcontractor is bound by the same terms as the general contractor, and you seem to be implying that the general contractor is always bound by the same rules that would apply to the governmental entity itself.
It's too broad a statement to say that the same standards apply. For example, the 1996 welfare "reform" act included provisions to make it easier for religious organizations to become federal contractors. Under the statute and the implementing rules, faith-based organizations "generally are not prohibited by federal law from making employment decisions based on religious grounds, even after receiving federal funds." (Source: GAO report)
That this particular employer is a federal contractor may give the woman a basis for a lawsuit. It's not the case, however, that accepting a federal contract means that an employer automatically accepts jot-for-jot incorporation of all the restrictions on government employment practices.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)This is really easy stuff.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's "really easy stuff" to say that the government can't discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. The GAO says that a government contractor is sometimes allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)contract from the government is essentially the government infringing upon free speech.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)...that was higher than the Federal living wage?
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)laws governing their contracts, but this is pure bullshit. She did not surrender her First amendment right to free speech, which this is, while riding a bicycle, on her own time. I hope she sues her former employer and she would win. Since she is not the one who published the photo, I don't see how it could violate some social media rule the company may or may not have had.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)I hope she walks away rich.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)I bet her employment contract contains language which prevents her bringing negative attention to the company. If so they can fire her for cause.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That guy was allowed to delete the comment and keep his job. Why? You could speculate its because hes a man and a senior director. But when you look at the cases side-by-side, no one at Akima was afraid that Black Lives Matter would retaliate against them. But they feared the target of Briskmans action the Trump administration would.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-woman-who-got-fired-for-flipping-off-president-trump-just-sued-her-former-employer/2018/04/04/64c7376c-3840-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Just speculating
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,475 posts)retaliation? Or is the lawyer saying that Briskman herself feared unlawful retaliation by the government?
ETA: I see they contract with the federal government, but I'm not convinced that will fly.
sl8
(13,949 posts)Their press release elaborates:
https://protectdemocracy.org/briskman-v-akima/
Briskmans suit states that it violates Virginia employment law for a government contractor to fire an employee out of fear of unlawful government retaliation. Ms. Briskmans suit uses the contrast between her treatment and the Senior Directors treatment to establish that she was forced to resign because of concerns about upsetting the federal government--not the supposed obscenity of the middle finger. It then underscores the suits critical importance by explaining why permitting business to fire employees out of fear of unlawful government retaliation imperils the freedom of speech and ultimately American democracy by forcing employees of government contractors to make an impossible choice: their livelihood or their freedom of speech
...
MichMary
(1,714 posts)Unless she had a contract that she violated, the company can fire her for any reason.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,475 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)her just to make this whole thing go away.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-suing-for-my-right-to-flip-off-the-president/2018/04/05/a0abcf10-38e8-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.bddfb4181f8d
MichMary
(1,714 posts)It's her opinion that the company feared that the government would penalize them. It may be true, may not be. Just her opinion.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,475 posts)spooky3
(34,510 posts)Than a male employee who did something that could be considered similar. If so, the legal protections against unfair discrimination (eg, disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) are relevant.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,475 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)because I also have no problem with this:
http://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/ap/s-c-man-fired-after-being-photographed-at-charlottesville-rally/article_aeac5795-abac-5bb9-8c85-fa267ce11c59.html
He was canned for participating in a white supremecist rally on his own time, and I'm glad he lost his job. The same rules should apply to both sides.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,475 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)....is the same thing?
you've got to be fucking kidding me. Are you now going to say there are good people on both sides?
MichMary
(1,714 posts)If he didn't participate in any violence, then he got fired because his presence at that rally reflected poorly on the restaurant.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)you are saying what the woman did is the same thing as the racist of a violent group that showed up only to inflict hatred and voplence.....you're doubling down on something really disgusting.
SomethingNew
(279 posts)Should flipping off the president cause retaliation in the awarding of government ment contracts? No. Will it? Under this administration, it's a real possibility.
Even beyond that though, she is a marketing person that just publically took an action likely to offend 50% of America. Not very smart, no matter how good it may have felt.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Beyond that, however, her employer (especially a private employer) could indeed terminate her for casting whatever is interpreted by the company as a negative light upon it.
And her out-of-the-office public behaviors apply as well. It forces the company into a defensive posture, and to disavow her as an intemperate person who in no way represents the kind of keen professional demeanor we demand from all our employees.
I do not like siding with management, but this is one instance where I would. And a company is not necessarily some evil thing. It could be a forward-thinking, enlightened outfit with a stellar reputation to maintain.