Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Marriott just fired an employee because she's a Democrat [View all]1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)37. Not exactly ...
Since the 1980s, the Courts have expanded the protections.
As a result, a greater number of discharged workers brought suits alleging Wrongful Discharge from employment. By the 1980s, as concepts of job security expanded, employees became increasingly successful in such suits. In 1987, California juries ruled in favor of the employees in over two-thirds of such cases and granted an average award of $1.5 million. In some successful cases, the courts have created exceptions to the employment-at-will practice. Thus far, these exceptions have fallen into three broad categories: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of public policy by the employer. Employers and legislatures have responded in a variety of ways.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employment+at+Will
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employment+at+Will
I realize using a lay-person's online dictionary is lazy; so, here:
Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, 464 N.W.2d 682,685 (Iowa 1991) (retaliatory discharge for
pursuing Workers' Compensation claim); Collierv. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1117,1118,279 Cal.
Rptr. 453, 454 (Cal. App. 1991) (employee discharged for disclosing suspicions of criminal conduct to
management); Hopkins v. Tip Top Plumbing and Heating Co., 805 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
(discriminatory discharge under Workers' Compensation law); Hartlein v. Ill. Power Co., 209 111. App. 3d
948, 953, 568 N.E.2d 520, 524 (111. App. Ct. 1991) (discharge for exercising Workers' Compensation
rights); Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228, 235, 551 N.E.2d 981, 987
(1990) (employee discharged as a result of court order which required employer to withhold child support
payments through wage assignments); Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Center, 921 F.2d 108,112
(7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2803 (1991) (retaliatory discharge regarded as intentional tort);
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1989) ("An employer's termination of an at-will
employee in contravention of a clear mandate of public policy is a tortious breach of contractual
obligations."

(WestLaw is a beautiful thing.)
BTW, here is a good Law Review Article on the subject:
https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/3e75bae0-d19b-4731-903a-f353dfb628c6.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Would a 1st amendment argument even make sense though as doesnt that apply to the government
cstanleytech
Sep 2014
#24
I think the poster was referring to "campaigning" as actually RUNNING, not just supporting
hughee99
Sep 2014
#21
by and large, what people do outside of work on their own time is not the company's concern.
unblock
Sep 2014
#9
By your logic, Ray Rice should not have been fired by the Ravens for hitting his fiancee
totodeinhere
Sep 2014
#18
you've neatly summarized your defense of fascism and corporate control over private lives
whereisjustice
Sep 2014
#66
Putting yourself in a conflict of interest position will usually get you fired.
badtoworse
Sep 2014
#8
By that measure, any employee simply voting for a Democrat would also be a conflict of interest
LanternWaste
Sep 2014
#11
No, running for office and voting a secret ballot are two different things.
totodeinhere
Sep 2014
#16
Why not? The fact that her employer is supporting her opponent is a conflict in and of itself.
badtoworse
Sep 2014
#61
An internal auditor could be in a position to have confidential information about her opponent...
badtoworse
Sep 2014
#65
Internal auditing investigates financial irregularities and non-compliance with company policies.
badtoworse
Sep 2014
#77
Well considering that I have three upcoming reservations with Marriott in the next 3 months
Horse with no Name
Sep 2014
#27
Why is MVW so invested in a County Commission race that they would fire someone over it?
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#64