Woman Fired For Flipping Off Donald Trump’s Motorcade

[Trish]

how sure are you about such a statement?

Good point but let's set that aside and go with what the article claims keeping in mind that the company has yet to respond to inquiries about the male employee's incident and how the company handled it. Generally when a statement is untrue it is quickly rebutted as such.

[Trish]

Unfortunately, the company has the unfettered right to terminate the business relationship between her and the company. The company is within their rights to discipline employees as they deem fit unless they were to single her out and say because she is a female, etc they are taking this action against her; then I think she'd have legal recourse otherwise. I'm assuming she's non-union, so she really has no rights in the workplace other then a few state and federal laws for the most egregious violations.

Agreed, but there is a precedence that the company set with the male employee. So why was the women treated differently?

[Trish]

Well the article seems to imply that an anti-liberal ramt was more tolerated than the anti-conservative one which very well could be true. The real issue of course is whether or not the customer is 'customer facing'

Can you expand on your comment :0)

[gamewell45]

Agreed, but there is a precedence that the company set with the male employee. So why was the women treated differently?

It could be a number of reasons; perhaps she had other prior issues and this was the last straw or perhaps someone at the company had it in for her, etc.

Because the state of Virginia is an employment-at-will state; she'd have to be able to prove in a court of law that there was discrimination targeted at her due to her sex. It's not as easy as it may seem; the federal and state labor laws are designed not to work in most cases and then there is the cost factor that has to be considered. Unless she can convince the state or feds that she was targeted due to her sex, she'll have to find an attorney who'll do the case pro bono or pay out of her own pocket and for most people either they cannot afford it or find it easier just to move on with their lives.

On a side note, I was in a labor union, so for me they couldn't terminate my employment unless they had just cause and could prove it in an arbitration hearing; for me the union was sort of like an insurance policy; you hope you never needed it but if you did, it was there for you. Most people have auto insurance on their cars; not because they are bad drivers, but because other drivers might not be good drivers or they may have an honest accident that happens and want to make sure their rights are protected/covered. It's common sense to me to have a policy like that.

[Chris]

Well the article seems to imply that an anti-liberal ramt was more tolerated than the anti-conservative one which very well could be true. The real issue of course is whether or not the customer is 'customer facing'

The employee.

Yes, that could make a difference in policy.

[Chris]

Can you expand on your comment :0)

I think he's saying the store policy may concern employees who are "customer facing" and those who are not. For example, in my job as a software developer, I do research customer issues, but I never communicate with them directly, that's left to Help Desk. Help Desk is customer facing, I'm not. Customer Care is. Sales peoples are. Anyone who deals with customers. So it's possible that the company policy specified customer facing employees must remain apolitical.

[Kacper]

Even if she did have an ulterior motive, the male employee also put his comments and photo on his social media page and was given the option of deleting it and keeping his job. Why the different rules for men and women?

It's possible that the man was an employee and she was a contractor. In which case, there may have been additional stipulations within the contract regarding conduct.

Maybe there is a content difference between posting a trolly comment and posting a photo of yourself flipping the bird to the POTUS having nothing to do with their gender. It may shock you, but sometimes women get fired for things having nothing to do with their boobs. I probably would have fired her too and I don't even like Trump. As for what I would have done with the other guy, not sure without seeing the post and the context. I have literally never looked at any of my employees' social media ever. I don't care and I don't want to know TBH, but if one came to me with what she came to them with, yes he/she would be gone.

[Don]

I don't think this is about treating men and women different. Man or woman, if people see them at the store and recognize them from an image posted on facebook many of them would probably think "that's the nut who flipped off the president of the United States."

[jimmyz]

I would guess that the male employee is more valuable to Akima than the woman who was fired. On its face, it seems the policy can be applied unequally at management's discretion.

[Kalkin]

Well the article seems to imply that an anti-liberal ramt was more tolerated than the anti-conservative one which very well could be true. The real issue of course is whether or not the customer is 'customer facing'

Perhaps the employer agrees with the anti-liberal statement and disagrees with flipping off the president, possibly jeopardizing gov contracts. At will employment is a great thing. Both parties have the freedom to terminate employment at any time.