California Woman Fired After Calling Obama N-Word, Hoping He's Assassinated

[JakeStarkey]

Federal law trumps California law, and if the company had fired her for the threat and the language, that would have been legal.

QWB is wrong.

You can disagree with the truth all you want, Ernie.

QWB is wrong, and so are you, if you agree with him.

I don't tolerate such language at our places of business, and I would fire anybody who is associated with our business for saying anything derogatory about MR's religion or Obama's race or anything of the sort.

Don't like? Don't care. You won't work for me.

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Meh... I think you could easily say she was fired for using a racist word in a public venue , not "political views".

Still illegal in California.

Did you post that law? Because I've been googling and can't seem to find what you're referencing.

You can't be fired for something that happens away from the business during non working hours.

CA Codes (lab:79-107)

 

[AmyNation]

"What if I am fired for something I wrote in my blog when I wasn't at work?
Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.

In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you)."

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/labor

I don't think her comments fall into the "fired for political views", however I suppose she could have a case in the "lawful actions outside of work".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You'd have to ask Cold Stone Creamery if the word ******, and the overt use thereof, are qualities that align with their code of conduct. Apparently, it's not.

Like I said, if this were any other circumstance other than one having to do with someone commenting on a ****** in the white house" then right wingers would be standing on the other foot entirely.

Actually, I don't, because California law specifically prohibits them from firing her because of what she said.

As I understand it, Quantum, it is against the law to advocate the assassination of an American President, and she may face an indictment and serve jail time like other people who break this law.

I see this as a breach of the law. It was a little more than just a stupid thing to say. She actually mentioned assassination as something that would bring her pleasure. Not only is that sick, if she has a young male suitor who is equally stupid as she, he could take it as his signal to assassinate President Obama.

In that light, she endangered my president, and I hate it with all my heart. It was the wrong thing to say. It's the wrong thing to do, also.

Strangely enough, it is, even stranger, she didn't do that.

Get over your pretentious posturing.

 

[freedombecki]

You can disagree with the truth all you want, Ernie.

QWB is wrong, and so are you, if you agree with him.

I don't tolerate such language at our places of business, and I would fire anybody who is associated with our business for saying anything derogatory about MR's religion or Obama's race or anything of the sort.

Don't like? Don't care. You won't work for me.

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

 

[Dreamy]

A different case but interesting aspect of how the Feds overruled the State"

Facebook-related Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Settled by Federal Agency - California Employment Lawyers Blog

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Federal law trumps California law, and if the company had fired her for the threat and the language, that would have been legal.

QWB is wrong.

You can disagree with the truth all you want, Ernie.

QWB is wrong, and so are you, if you agree with him.

I don't tolerate such language at our places of business, and I would fire anybody who is associated with our business for saying anything derogatory about MR's religion or Obama's race or anything of the sort.

Don't like? Don't care. You won't work for me.

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

It wasn't a threat, there fore she could not be fired for a threat. As for the language, unless you can show me something in federal law that makes racist remarks illegal it doesn't trump California law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB is insisting the state law, first, trumps fed law, and, second, that an employer cannot fire an employee for wrongful language that brings the company by association in disrepute.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"What if I am fired for something I wrote in my blog when I wasn't at work?
Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.

In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you)."

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/labor

I don't think her comments fall into the "fired for political views", however I suppose she could have a case in the "lawful actions outside of work".

Which is what I am saying, unless they can show she did it from work, or during working hours, I don't think it is legal, and she can file suit to get her job back. Personally, I doubt she would win, even in CA, but you never know. My favorite quirk of California law were involves the Nazi bikers that wore their colors into a black owned restaurant and won a lawsuit because they were asked to take them off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can disagree with the truth all you want, Ernie.

QWB is wrong, and so are you, if you agree with him.

I don't tolerate such language at our places of business, and I would fire anybody who is associated with our business for saying anything derogatory about MR's religion or Obama's race or anything of the sort.

Don't like? Don't care. You won't work for me.

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

Since she didn't actually break the law, you would be wrong for firing her for breaking the law.

 

[freedombecki]

Still illegal in California.

Did you post that law? Because I've been googling and can't seem to find what you're referencing.

You can't be fired for something that happens away from the business during non working hours.

CA Codes (lab:79-107)

Yes you can be fired for breaking federal law if your boss fires you based on your sullying his business with illegal speech if other employees can reach that speech from their work computers online.

It's illegal to use speech that would incite others to assassinate a POTUS.

There's no question in my mind that woman should be in federal custody right now along with a complete and total analysis of the contents of her work and home computers and an investigation into her contacts who may be more into assassination than she.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong, QWB.

 

[Dreamy]

You can disagree with the truth all you want, Ernie.

QWB is wrong, and so are you, if you agree with him.

I don't tolerate such language at our places of business, and I would fire anybody who is associated with our business for saying anything derogatory about MR's religion or Obama's race or anything of the sort.

Don't like? Don't care. You won't work for me.

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

I understand your POV and position Becki but I would not go so far as to say she was advocating people to assassinate the US President. I think the social media has created a new environment for people from all walks of life and gives them the ability to let the thoughts within their minds be known to all.

What if she had written an essay at school or an editorial to the newspaper? Would that have made her also susceptible to termination? Where do our freedoms begin and end when speaking about our jobs?

Unpleasant or distasteful writings done outside of work hours should not be grounds for termination imo unless they break the law.

 

[freedombecki]

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

Since she didn't actually break the law, you would be wrong for firing her for breaking the law.

My undeerstanding of the federal law is that it is illegal to suggest assassinating the President of the United States. That law was passed within the last 20 years, though I can't remember if it followed the almost-successful assassination attempt on President Reagan's life. Every president has the problem.

It is against the law, Quantum. I know that kind of particularly-focused speech is against the federal law.

 

[Connery]

Still illegal in California.

Did you post that law? Because I've been googling and can't seem to find what you're referencing.

You can't be fired for something that happens away from the business during non working hours.

CA Codes (lab:79-107)

The statute "Authorizes the California Labor Commissioner to take assignment of claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises"

However, the posting was up when the employee was at work and the conduct was ongoing. Therefore the employer's argument would be that this law is inapplicable and they had a right to fire her.

 

[freedombecki]

I keep pointing out that California law prohibits employer from firing people for what they say when they are not at work, and you declare me wrong by pointing out what you don't like.

Are you really that stupid?

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

I understand your POV and position Becki but I would not go so far as to say she was advocating people to assassinate the US President. I think the social media has created a new environment for people from all walks of life the ability to let the thoughts within their minds be known to all.

What if she had written an essay at school or an editorial to the newspaper? Would that have made her also susceptible to termination? Where do our freedoms begin and end when speaking about our jobs?

Unpleasant or distasteful writings done outside of work hours should not be grounds for termination imo unless they break the law.

Inciting someone else to assassinate the President of the United States is a law that was passed sometime in the last few years. I recall it having been passed through both houses of Congress.

You do not goddamn say you would like the President to be assassinated. PERIOD.

 

[AmyNation]

Employers should have the right to fire you for anything they want with few exceptions.

 

[Dreamy]

Quantum, I ran a business, and whether or not it were against state law to fire someone, I would have fired her on the belief she broke a federal law. You just don't advocate for people to assassinate a United States President. It's illegal.

I understand your POV and position Becki but I would not go so far as to say she was advocating people to assassinate the US President. I think the social media has created a new environment for people from all walks of life the ability to let the thoughts within their minds be known to all.

What if she had written an essay at school or an editorial to the newspaper? Would that have made her also susceptible to termination? Where do our freedoms begin and end when speaking about our jobs?

Unpleasant or distasteful writings done outside of work hours should not be grounds for termination imo unless they break the law.

Inciting someone else to assassinate the President of the United States is a law that was passed sometime in the last few years. I recall it having been passed through both houses of Congress.

You do not goddamn say you would like the President to be assassinated. PERIOD.

I was unaware such a law existed so I will defer to you on that matter. I am not sure that this would qualify as such. Read what she posted. She never said she would like the President to be assassinated, did she?

The law will decide in the end after an investigation. I am more interested in the job termination actually.

 

[Cowman]

Millions of right wingers probably believe the same thing, but they're not dumb enough to post it publically.

I mean shit, what else would people who think Obama has KILLED the USA think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A different case but interesting aspect of how the Feds overruled the State"

Facebook-related Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Settled by Federal Agency - California Employment Lawyers Blog

Isn't big government wonderful?