Fired over facebook message. Illegal? Maybe.

[bstone]

The labor relations board announced last week that it had filed a complaint against an ambulance service, American Medical Response of Connecticut, that fired an emergency medical technician, accusing her, among other things, of violating a policy that bars employees from depicting the company “in any way” on Facebook or other social media sites in which they post pictures of themselves.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=1

 

[Shishkabob]

Meh, company policy is you can have a blog / facebook / etc etc, and post what you will, but it shall not put the company or it's contracts in a negative light.


Don't necessarily agree with it, and I've been known to do it too, but there's a reason why my blog is anonymous and I add no one that I work with ^_^


Texas is an at will state, so not much recourse here for me if something were to happen.

 

[Emtpbill]

Just because a state is an at will employment state, that doesn't mean employees don't have any rights.
AMR over stepped it's bounds on this. If they wanted to get rid of the employee they should have gotten their ducks in order and found some other bogus reason for firing her ( 2 min. Late, bad paperwork, etc.)

They will end up having to offer her her job back and pay her back pay for all the missed shifts.

 

[bstone]

Just because a state is an at will employment state, that doesn't mean employees don't have any rights.
AMR over stepped it's bounds on this. If they wanted to get rid of the employee they should have gotten their ducks in order and found some other bogus reason for firing her ( 2 min. Late, bad paperwork, etc.)

They will end up having to offer her her job back and pay her back pay for all the missed shifts.

True. A state's law of being at-will is nice and all, but this is a federal issue.

 

[EMSLaw]

At-will employment means that the employer can terminate your employment for any legal reason, or no reason at all. At-will employment does not permit your employer to terminate you for an illegal reason.

It's a bit funny actually... They can fire you because they just don't like you, but they can't fire you (or say they fired you) because of your race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

In this case, the argument seems to be that the termination was for an illegal reason - protected speech in violation of Federal law. So, it being an at-will state will make no difference.

Also, an employer's right to terminate could be limited by their contract with the Union, which would likely include some form of progressive discipline.

 

[alphatrauma]

... she had written, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” — 17 is the company’s lingo for a psychiatric patient.

Nice!

 

[Harvey]

Gotta take care to watch what you post and where you post it these days. I dont like the facebook location update. just seems like so many problems are coming from the site. I am thinking of deleting my profile on it.

 

[bstone]

Gotta take care to watch what you post and where you post it these days. I dont like the facebook location update. just seems like so many problems are coming from the site. I am thinking of deleting my profile on it.

I dont have a phone with internet. I have a regular cell phone that makes and receives calls. That's all. Because I am not tied into anything I don't have to worry about location update.

Anyhow, she is allowed to say to her friends whatever she wants to say. Right?

 

[reaper]

This was debated with experts of the 1st amend.

You have no protection of free speech from a private employer. The 1st amendment protects you from the government. So her only case is union laws.

 

[CAO]

Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?

 

[bstone]

Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?

Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.

 

[FrostbiteMedic]

Two things to consider here:
1. If she was required to prepare a response to any allegation and she was a member of a union, then she has the right to have a union rep there. It's kinda like having a lawyer with you when you are getting questioned at the police station. AMR screwed the pooch big time if they truly would not let her have her rep assist her with the response.
2.In at will states (my wonderful Rocky Top being one of them), you can be fired for any reason by an employer, however, if they give you a reason it must be able to be substansiated and against a written policy, otherwise you can file a complaint with that state's labor board. For example: I come into work one day and my boss decides that he doesn't like my socks. He calls me into his office and says "You're fired." Well, at this point I am on my way to draw unemployment, but the firing was legal.
Same scenario again, except that the boss says "You have missed 3 days of work in the past year. You're fired!" I go out to my truck and pull out my company handbook and the attendance policy states that it takes 5 absences within a six month period to get terminated. At this point, I can go to the local labor board and file a complaint, because the reason that I was fired was not legal.

It was said earlier that they would have to give her her job back. Truth be told, if I were her, I would take a cash settlement and look for other employment because the people who fired her will just find another way to fire her later on down the road, and when that happens, they will make sure that it sticks. For example (and I do know of an employer that did this to get rid of a "problem" employee) what if they were to wait until they knew she went out of town for a couple days (say she had a couple days off and went to visit family a couple states over) and then call a mandatory meeting for all employees? If she did not request it off (and get it approved), and depending on the way her terms of employment are worded, she could be fired for missing it. In other words, if she is lucky to get money out of this, then she needs to take it and run.

 

[EMSLaw]

You have no protection of free speech from a private employer. The 1st amendment protects you from the government. So her only case is union laws.

Did I ever say that, or is this not directed at me? Federal law gives you the certain rights, and your employer is bound by that law. So, you have certain protected speech, even in connection with your private employer. Whether the comments in this case are protected, I don't care to speculate.

Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.

Sure it's public, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't need to be "public" like "shouted on the street corner". You just need to "publish" the defamation to any one person other than yourself.

On the other hand, defamation (libel and slander) covers only statements of fact that are known to be false. A statement of opinion is protected.

 

[CAO]

Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.

True, but I can see it being argued if she doesn't have her information private.

 

[Aidey]

Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?

*Gets on soapbox*

That is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I really hope you don't know how offensive you sound. Claiming libel or slander when someone implies another person has a psychiatric problem is insulting to every person out there with a mental illness. It is like saying that calling someone gay or black is libel/slander. It implies that being those things is somehow bad, and it hurts a "normal" person to be called those things. If they want to go after her becuase it was inaccurate, fine. But to go after her for libel is deplorable and beyond insulting.

/soapbox

A little more info on the case: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097443/ns/business-personal_finance/

 

[FrostbiteMedic]

*Gets on soapbox*
That is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I really hope you don't know how offensive you sound. Claiming libel or slander when someone implies another person has a psychiatric problem is insulting to every person out there with a mental illness. It is like saying that calling someone gay or black is libel/slander. It implies that being those things is somehow bad, and it hurts a "normal" person to be called those things. If they want to go after her becuase it was inaccurate, fine. But to go after her for libel is deplorable and beyond insulting.

Well said Aidey...my wife has some issues with "normality" (and is being treated for said issues) and we both happen to agree with your post. Well said sir.

 

[Aidey]

Thank you.

On a side note, why does everyone think I'm a guy? lol

 

[EMSLaw]

Aidey, while I personally agree with your position, I'm afraid that the law is not yet so forward thinking. Indeed, accusing someone who doesn't have a mental illness of having one is considered to be so obviously harmful that in some states it falls into the category of defamation per se, which means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove specific damage to his reputation. It's the same as if I said someone had an STD (a category that we loved in law school, because the case law discusses "imputing a loathesome disease") when they didn't.

Incidentally, falsely saying that someone is homosexual is also, at least in some states, considered to be defamatory per se, though that's being questioned now in some places. In some states, it is still defamatory per se to "impute unchastity to a woman." Until public norms change so that these things are not considered harmful to the reputation of someone who is not mentally ill, homosexual, or unchaste, the law will likely continue to recompense harm for false or reckless statements.

 

[FrostbiteMedic]

Thank you.

On a side note, why does everyone think I'm a guy? lol

I assumed because of the name, and my apologies to you m'lady.

 

[Aidey]

Aidey, while I personally agree with your position, I'm afraid that the law is not yet so forward thinking. Indeed, accusing someone who doesn't have a mental illness of having one is considered to be so obviously harmful that in some states it falls into the category of defamation per se, which means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove specific damage to his reputation. It's the same as if I said someone had an STD (a category that we loved in law school, because the case law discusses "imputing a loathesome disease") when they didn't.

Incidentally, falsely saying that someone is homosexual is also, at least in some states, considered to be defamatory per se, though that's being questioned now in some places. In some states, it is still defamatory per se to "impute unchastity to a woman." Until public norms change so that these things are not considered harmful to the reputation of someone who is not mentally ill, homosexual, or unchaste, the law will likely continue to recompense harm for false or reckless statements.

It is still disgusting. Like I said, some sort of consequence for saying something that is false is one thing. But by categorizing those things as "bad" it is insulting and dehumanizing to the people who are those things.

I assumed because of the name, and my apologies to you m'lady.

How is my name masculine? I'm curious because everyone seems to think I'm a guy.

Medic school, drunk guy decided to call me "the first aidey lady".