Woman who claims she was fired for flipping off Trump motorcade sues former employer

[babylonsister]

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]

1. It would be

wonderful if she is receiving Pro bono representation. This is just wrong legal or not.

[oasis]

2. Peaceful protest ends in 6 mo. vacation w/ pay. Works for me.

"violated company's social media policy". Her bosses need to read th U.S. Constitution.

[spanone]

3. We once had a thing called the first amendment.

[MichMary]

9. The First Amendment

restricts the government, not a private employer.

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.

[boston bean]

11. The company is under federal contract.

[MichMary]

13. I don't think that makes a difference

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]

18. They are held to standards and laws of the federal government in order to participate in those

Contracts. Including employment policies.

[MichMary]

20. She admitted that she violated their

social media policy.

[LanternWaste]

35. Deft movement for your goalposts from their original location.

Deft movement for your goalposts from their original location.

[MichMary]

37. Okay.

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]

27. I do not think this is correct, with regard to the Constitutional protections.

Federal contractors are considered as private employers and not governmental units, with regard to free speech protections, for example.

[boston bean]

28. When companies work with the government they sign on to contracts that include all sorts

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]

30. I do this work for a living. You may want to investigate

This further.

[boston bean]

32. As do I. And any contractor to a company that holds a contract with a govt entity is bound by the

same govt terms as the company that holds the contract.

[Jim Lane]

34. That's certainly not always the case.

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. When a company is under government contract they are acting on behalf of the government.

This is really easy stuff.

[Jim Lane]

38. Are you saying that the GAO report was incorrect?

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]

39. I am stating that in this case, not some other one pulled from thin air, that the company under

contract from the government is essentially the government infringing upon free speech.

[BoneyardDem]

42. Isn't your reasoning the one Obama used when compelling Gov't contractors to pay a minimum wage

...that was higher than the Federal living wage?

[politicaljunkie41910]

40. As a former federal government Contract Administrator, yes contractors are held to standards and

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]

41. Umm did you mean to respond to me??

[sarah FAILIN]

4. Good for her

I hope she walks away rich.

[Kilgore]

5. The real question is what did she agree too.

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]

12. A male employee posted "You're a f----ing Libtard ---hole" and was just told to delete the comment.

See, that guy — a senior director of operations at Akima who clearly identifies himself with the company on his social media account — used that account to write “You’re a f----ing Libtard ---hole” on a Facebook discussion about Black Lives Matter.

That guy was allowed to delete the comment and keep his job. Why? You could speculate it’s because he’s 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 Briskman’s 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]

16. I bet she was a contractor and he was a direct employee

Just speculating

[ehrnst]

17. The article at the link has that information. (nt)

[MichMary]

21. He should have been fired, too. n/t

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Are they saying this is a First Amendment issue because the company was "afraid" of unlawful

retaliation? Or is the lawyer saying that Briskman herself feared unlawful retaliation by the government?

"Akima's actions -- forcing Juli to resign out of fear of unlawful retaliation by the government -- violated the basic tenets of Virginia employment law."

ETA: I see they contract with the federal government, but I'm not convinced that will fly.

[sl8]

15. It seems to be the former.

Their press release elaborates:
https://protectdemocracy.org/briskman-v-akima/

...
Briskman’s suit states that it violates Virginia employment law for a government contractor to fire an employee out of fear of unlawful government retaliation. Ms. Briskman’s suit uses the contrast between her treatment and the Senior Director’s 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 suit’s 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]

7. Employment at will

Unless she had a contract that she violated, the company can fire her for any reason.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. Yeah, I'm just not seeing how she wins this; she might be just looking for a settlement.

[MichMary]

10. They may pay

her just to make this whole thing go away.

[ehrnst]

14. "Why I'm suing for my right to flip off the president"

While acknowledging that the First Amendment protected my right to extend my middle finger, my boss told me that “corporate protection” dictated that he terminate me on the grounds of a social media policy that prohibits “obscene” or “inappropriate” content. Akima does business with the government, and company executives obviously feared that the Trump administration would (unconstitutionally) penalize my employer for my gesture. So, that Tuesday, they forced me out.

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]

19. So she did violate her company's policy

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]

22. And another 15 minutes.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. .

[spooky3]

29. I think her argument may be that she was treated differently

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]

31. But it doesn't sound like that's what the case is saying -- at least from her comments.

[MichMary]

23. I have no problem with her being fired

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]

24. Yeah, I have to say some of the comments on this thread are cracking me up.

[BoneyardDem]

43. a white supremacist attending a rally that devolved into violence and the death of a woman....

....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]

44. He got canned for what he was doing on his own time

If he didn't participate in any violence, then he got fired because his presence at that rally reflected poorly on the restaurant.

[BoneyardDem]

45. you are drawing a sick parallel

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]

26. You can't do things that could hurt your company and expect it to be fine.

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]

33. I applaud her spirit, and she wont face prison for exercising free speech.

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.