Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' - Page 3 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums

Nimreitz · 11-12-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

You're ****ing kidding right?

America is globally the joke of suing over anything and everything.

This is because we don't have the loser pays system. As KAS has demonstrated, she may actually have a claim based on California labor law; in Canada maybe she would be scared from pursuing a legitimate claim because of the threat that she would have to pay Cold Stone's legal fees. I don't like that system either.

**Krstic All-Star** · 11-12-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

Yeah, but that would be easy to establish as a pretext, which could be seen as an admission by the employer that what they were doing was illegal.

Very true...

**R-Star** · 11-12-2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimreitz

This is because we don't have the loser pays system. As KAS has demonstrated, she may actually have a claim based on California labor law; in Canada maybe she would be scared from pursuing a legitimate claim because of the threat that she would have to pay Cold Stone's legal fees. I don't like that system either.

Bottom line is she wouldn't have a better case in Canada. Cases like that in Canada are laughed out of court.

Nimreitz · 11-12-2012, 05:13 PM

I'm pretty sure workers rights is a thing in Canada

**Ron** · 11-12-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krstic All-Star

I'm no expert on California law, but nexus points involving the internet and speech are within my area. Basically, she was fired for speech consisting of political activity outside the workplace. So in California, you have Labor Law ss 1101 and 1102, which read as follows:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=1101-1106

Again, not being knowledgeable about California law per se, I can't speak to whether the case law expands or contracts her plausible grounds for suit under these sections, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see it play out that way. She might also have rights under two other sections of California's Labor Code that specifically protect bloggers.

As an added bonus, from what I've read she claims that her Facebook settings were on Private. If so, and someone retransmitted it without her authorization, she might have a cause of action under California's rather robust privacy protection laws.

She's still an idiot though. No legalese necessary to explain that part

KAS, given the language you quoted, I don't think either statute applies.

Quote:

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.

In the case of 1101(a), the employer never forbade her from engaging or participating in politics, or for becoming a candidate for public office, because it didn't get that far. She made her idiotic posts, and the company was basically blindsided by it.

In the case of 1101(b), again, there was no attempt by the company to do so. Same reasoning, they were blindsided by the employee.

Quote:

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.

In this case, their was no coercion or influence by means of threat or discharge for the same reason, the employee was the first one to act on the issue. In other words, her actions had already taken place. Only after she acted, the company fired her.

I think the logic here is, these statutes really don't apply because the employer did not act within the language of 1101 or 1102.

**Ron** · 11-12-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R-Star

What facts reported? She wrote that Obama was a ****** and she hoped he gets assassinated this term.

Yes its America, so yes she can try to sue Cold Stone for firing her over this. But no, she does not have a chance in hell of it succeeding.

Joe Tagliabue, former NFL commissioner, said all you need to sue is $10 (filing fee) and a fax machine.

Mr. Hobbes · 11-12-2012, 11:27 PM

What about the outright racism? Or does that only matter when within the workplace?

When applied in court, I mean.

Nimreitz · 11-13-2012, 02:59 AM

Yes, if she did sue I would absolutely argue that her racism is distinct from any political message.

e-monk · 11-13-2012, 05:09 AM

It all depends on what she signed when was on-boarded - a lot of companies have an employee handbook that the new employee signs off on an "I have read and understand" basis and often times there will be language in the handbook that can give the employer wiggle room to do something like this

Tragedy · 11-17-2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krstic All-Star

I'm no expert on California law, but nexus points involving the internet and speech are within my area. Basically, she was fired for speech consisting of political activity outside the workplace. So in California, you have Labor Law ss 1101 and 1102, which read as follows:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=1101-1106

Again, not being knowledgeable about California law per se, I can't speak to whether the case law expands or contracts her plausible grounds for suit under these sections, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see it play out that way. She might also have rights under two other sections of California's Labor Code that specifically protect bloggers.

As an added bonus, from what I've read she claims that her Facebook settings were on Private. If so, and someone retransmitted it without her authorization, she might have a cause of action under California's rather robust privacy protection laws.

She's still an idiot though. No legalese necessary to explain that part

Calling for assassination is not 'political activity'

**Krstic All-Star** · 11-17-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tragedy

Calling for assassination is not 'political activity'

It would be unprotected as criminal speech, right - but it's not at all clear that she actually called for assassination as legally defined.

**Hyperion** · 11-17-2012, 09:44 AM

What the crap are you talking about? Her hoping the president gets assassinated has nothing to do with her being fired. Her calling a black man a n***** is what got her fired. There is nothing in the law that protects hate speech other than not going to jail for it. However, as an employee of Cold Stone, she can be fired for it. There isn't a legal court in North America that would side with her.

**Krstic All-Star** · 11-17-2012, 04:50 PM

Threatening assassination is a criminal act that is not only non-protected speech, but would also shield private (I.e. non-governmental) employers from ltermination liability that could otherwise derive from firing someone for racist speech. 'Hate speech' IS protected speech, and as distasteful as it is, that nature of her speech is irrelevant if she tries to sue under the blogger protection laws.

**Hyperion** · 11-17-2012, 09:44 PM

Protected from criminal but not social ramifications.

**Krstic All-Star** · 11-18-2012, 05:56 AM

Yup, she deserves no moral protection

11-12-2012, 05:13 PM	#34 (permalink)
Nimreitz Legend Join Date: May 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Age: 29 Posts: 16,247 Rep Power: 14813408	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' I'm pretty sure workers rights is a thing in Canada

11-12-2012, 11:27 PM	#37 (permalink)
Mr. Hobbes Legend Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 19,469 Rep Power: 21474863	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' What about the outright racism? Or does that only matter when within the workplace? When applied in court, I mean. __________________ don't edit me bro

11-13-2012, 02:59 AM	#38 (permalink)
Nimreitz Legend Join Date: May 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Age: 29 Posts: 16,247 Rep Power: 14813408	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' Yes, if she did sue I would absolutely argue that her racism is distinct from any political message.

11-13-2012, 05:09 AM	#39 (permalink)
e-monk All-Star Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,832 Rep Power: 3274359	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' It all depends on what she signed when was on-boarded - a lot of companies have an employee handbook that the new employee signs off on an "I have read and understand" basis and often times there will be language in the handbook that can give the employer wiggle room to do something like this

11-17-2012, 04:50 PM	#43 (permalink)
Krstic All-Star Legal Smeagol Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Unemployed, in Greenland?!? Age: 34 Posts: 30,680 Rep Power: 19240053	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' Threatening assassination is a criminal act that is not only non-protected speech, but would also shield private (I.e. non-governmental) employers from ltermination liability that could otherwise derive from firing someone for racist speech. 'Hate speech' IS protected speech, and as distasteful as it is, that nature of her speech is irrelevant if she tries to sue under the blogger protection laws. __________________ LIPA delenda est

11-18-2012, 05:56 AM	#45 (permalink)
Krstic All-Star Legal Smeagol Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Unemployed, in Greenland?!? Age: 34 Posts: 30,680 Rep Power: 19240053	Re: Woman fired after Obama Facebook post: 'I'm not racist' Yup, she deserves no moral protection __________________ LIPA delenda est

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode