Woman Photographed Flipping Off Trump Fired By Employer

[Malintent]

Yeah. It looks like there's a brand on that shirt.

Wearing a company logo while doing something like what she did is not a smart move!

It doesn't matter what she was wearing, she's a moron. But she should not have lost her job over it.

What she was wearing is the ONLY thing relevant here. What planet are you from? She has the freedom to express herself, but her company also has the freedom to protect their reputation by limiting the speech of those that so much as APPEAR to represent them. That is why companies usually have a social media policy... to enforce their rights.
Remember, all of your rights end where everyone else's rights begin.

 

[Malintent]

She got fired for violating her employers social media policy:



SHE used the photo inappropriately.

In her defense, it went viral without her. She doesn't seem too broken up about being let go though.

I suspect that shirt she is wearing is a company tee shirt that identifies the employer.

The text on the back looks too long... and too illegible.

and that is where the issue is. NOT of her flipping off the president, but of her "representing" her company on social media in an unapproved manner.

Yeah, and in Virginia, apparently that is just fine. Granted, I almost never ever mention work on social media.

yes, it went viral without her.... and at that point, no one was in trouble for anything. It was HER actions alone that got her in trouble... the setting of the image on her profile page... THAT was the only issue.

 

[Malintent]

It was not a company shirt. There was absolutely no connection between anything in the photo and her company. She simply gave her employer a "heads-up" that it was her in the photo, and she was quickly terminated.

And she's also received threat, of course.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca..._story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.33408895b94d

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. It looks like there's a brand on that shirt.

Wearing a company logo while doing something like what she did is not a smart move!

Of course there's a brand on the shirt. It's quite a leap to assume it's her company, and to assume that she somehow made them look bad. They've done that on their own.

I don't think it is a leap to have assumed it was the company's logo, based on how they reacted. But, if you are correct in that it was not a company shirt she was wearing, and that there was no mention of the company on her profile page or anywhere else in her publically viewable posts, then this is an unacceptable reaction from the company, as no policy would likely have been broken.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't matter what she was wearing, she's a moron. But she should not have lost her job over it.

What she was wearing is the ONLY thing relevant here. What planet are you from? She has the freedom to express herself, but her company also has the freedom to protect their reputation by limiting the speech of those that so much as APPEAR to represent them. That is why companies usually have a social media policy... to enforce their rights. {snip}

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

 

[Malintent]

What she was wearing is the ONLY thing relevant here. What planet are you from? She has the freedom to express herself, but her company also has the freedom to protect their reputation by limiting the speech of those that so much as APPEAR to represent them. That is why companies usually have a social media policy... to enforce their rights. {snip}

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

In an "employment at will" situation, which is the default for any employee that does not have an explicit employment contract in most states, a person can be fired for NO reason. However, when such a publically visible event occurs, it is nearly impossible to claim that she was fired for NO reason. Obviously, the reason for her firing was this event. Therefore, "at will" termination does not apply. clearly she was fired for cause, for which the terminated employee has recourse (can sue for wrongful termination).

You are correct that she can be fired for 'being a moron', as long as they don't say so, and as long as it cannot be shown to LIKELY be due to some event (cause). unless, her "being a moron" had a material, evidenced effect on her work output... still, that's "cause".

I can be fired because my employer just wants to fire me.
I cannot be fired (without liability on the company for wrongful termination) for not following someone on twitter when it is not my job to follow people on twitter (for example).

 

[funinspace]

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

In an "employment at will" situation, which is the default for any employee that does not have an explicit employment contract in most states, a person can be fired for NO reason. However, when such a publically visible event occurs, it is nearly impossible to claim that she was fired for NO reason. Obviously, the reason for her firing was this event. Therefore, "at will" termination does not apply. clearly she was fired for cause, for which the terminated employee has recourse (can sue for wrongful termination).

You are correct that she can be fired for 'being a moron', as long as they don't say so, and as long as it cannot be shown to LIKELY be due to some event (cause). unless, her "being a moron" had a material, evidenced effect on her work output... still, that's "cause".

I can be fired because my employer just wants to fire me.
I cannot be fired (without liability on the company for wrongful termination) for not following someone on twitter when it is not my job to follow people on twitter (for example).

Yup! As a government contractor, plastering this on one's FaceButt account isn't the smartest thing to do...

 

[TSwizzle]

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

In an "employment at will" situation, which is the {snip}.

Oops, I seem to have given you the impression I give a shit. Apologies.

 

[Malintent]

In an "employment at will" situation, which is the {snip}.

Oops, I seem to have given you the impression I give a shit. Apologies.

So, you don't give a shit about the content you provide. I am not terribly surprised. There's a word for posting things for which one has no actual interest in... something about living under a bridge or something? Perhaps you have heard the term...
Your apology is accepted at the level of sincerity it was offered (and retained for future use).

 

[blastula]

What a moron.

Yeah, for telling her employer about the photo.

 

[TSwizzle]

What a moron.

Yeah, for telling her employer about the photo.

Her behavior is that of a moron. But it's still a bit harsh they fired her.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yeah, for telling her employer about the photo.

Her behavior is that of a moron. But it's still a bit harsh they fired her.

Well, I don't know about that. She works for a government contractor and she posted a photo of herself flipping off the head of the government.

If I ran a company which did a lot of business with Tesla and one of my employees posted a photo of herself flipping off Elon Musk, I'd fire her for that. She was offensive to the guy who's responsible for my company's income and sufficient reason to immediately and publically remove her from the company. It wouldn't matter if she had a really good reason to flip him off or that she did it on her own private time, I just would not want her as part of my business anymore.

 

[ZiprHead]

Akima LLC's FB timeline is interesting to say the least.

 

[TSwizzle]

Her behavior is that of a moron. But it's still a bit harsh they fired her.

Well, I don't know about that. She works for a government contractor and she posted a photo of herself flipping off the head of the government.

If I ran a company which did a lot of business with Tesla and one of my employees posted a photo of herself flipping off Elon Musk, I'd fire her for that. She was offensive to the guy who's responsible for my company's income and sufficient reason to immediately and publically remove her from the company. It wouldn't matter if she had a really good reason to flip him off or that she did it on her own private time, I just would not want her as part of my business anymore.

You've changed your tune;

You mean people shouldn't face government imposed penalties right? As a firm believer in the 1st Amendment I agree with you there. Though I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread.

No, they should be protected against their employers taking action against them as well. Just like you can't fire someone for being a Christian and praying in the lunchroom, you shouldn't be able to fire someone for expressing their political opinions in a manner which doesn't impact their job performance.

 

[laughing dog]

What she was wearing is the ONLY thing relevant here. What planet are you from? She has the freedom to express herself, but her company also has the freedom to protect their reputation by limiting the speech of those that so much as APPEAR to represent them. That is why companies usually have a social media policy... to enforce their rights. {snip}

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

As you should well appreciate, being a moron is not usually a reason to be fired.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not sure it's the ONLY thing in play. She's a moron and that may be enough for her employers to get rid. But it does seem harsh.

As you should well appreciate, being a moron is not usually a reason to be fired.

If the shirt she wore bore the company logo then the company boss may disagree with you.

The report here said she violated the company media policy

https://heavy.com/news/2017/11/juli-briskman-flipping-off-trump/

 

[RavenSky]

As you should well appreciate, being a moron is not usually a reason to be fired.

If the shirt she wore bore the company logo then the company boss may disagree with you.

You are still living in last week, aren't you?

 

[bilby]

The story said the photo was taken by a White House photographer, so how was she able to get it and use it on social media.

Later,
electEngr

The person in the motorcade that took the picture posted it and it went totally viral from there. At that point, no one was in trouble... it was when she got a hold of the picture (after it being widely disseminated), and did something inappropriate with it.

It's a great word, 'inappropriate'. It means whatever we want it to mean.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person taking a widely disseminated photograph of themselves, and using it on their own social media.

Of course, under US employment law, employees are basically the property of their employers, and have no rights of any kind, so we shouldn't be surprised by capricious and needless firings over totally trivial non-issues. It helps to keep the workers in line, stops them from thinking that they are allowed to have lives of their own, or be treated with anything that might be mistaken for respect.

The only thing I don't understand is why US workers haven't risen in bloody revolt and strung up the corporation heads from lampposts. Yet.

 

[Elixir]

The only thing I don't understand is why US workers haven't risen in bloody revolt and strung up the corporation heads from lampposts. Yet.

I think you'd have to live in the US for a lot of years to fully understand that.
The short version is that the monied elite are very practiced in producing precisely scaled "emergencies" that are exactly urgent enough to override whatever concerns about freedom are being raised at a given moment, but not so dire as to disrupt the productivity of the seething masses. The "bloody revolt" you are wondering about died a death from a thousand cuts, a long time ago.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, I don't know about that. She works for a government contractor and she posted a photo of herself flipping off the head of the government.

If I ran a company which did a lot of business with Tesla and one of my employees posted a photo of herself flipping off Elon Musk, I'd fire her for that. She was offensive to the guy who's responsible for my company's income and sufficient reason to immediately and publically remove her from the company. It wouldn't matter if she had a really good reason to flip him off or that she did it on her own private time, I just would not want her as part of my business anymore.

You've changed your tune;

You mean people shouldn't face government imposed penalties right? As a firm believer in the 1st Amendment I agree with you there. Though I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread.

No, they should be protected against their employers taking action against them as well. Just like you can't fire someone for being a Christian and praying in the lunchroom, you shouldn't be able to fire someone for expressing their political opinions in a manner which doesn't impact their job performance.

Uh ... no.

I have two unrelated opinions on two marginally related topics.

Nice try, though.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If the shirt she wore bore the company logo then the company boss may disagree with you.

Why are people still saying this?

It's been debunked twice in the thread.