6 ms·

Only in enacting company-wide policies to coerce political participation. Terminating employment for political actions in an at-will employment state like Cali

Only in enacting company-wide policies to coerce political participation. Terminating employment for political actions in an at-will employment state like California is still legal. From your article: >On the contrary, political beliefs or views are not a specifically protected category under California's discrimination laws. Nothing in either of the two labor code provisions above directly addresses discrimination or retaliation on the basis of expressed political views. Nor does the First Amendment serve to provide any further guidance. With limited exceptions, the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "freedom of speech" applies only to government action and not private employers/employees. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation discrimination against federal employees only.

manfredo 7y ago
How is policy of terminating employees who donate to certain ballot propositions not amount to coercing political participation? It's directly coercing employees against donating with the threat of losing their jobs.
- bduerst 7y ago
  How do you know that it is Mozilla's company policy? That is the distinction based on the law that you cited. Firing someone for a reason in an at-will employment state does not suddenly make that reason part of the company policy.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Because they fired an employee specifically for their political donations. Your claim that firing employees for their political activity is ok as long as it's not a company policy and only one-off instances is not what law groups are saying. Here's one that addresses Eich's case specifically: https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-employee-political-activity/ https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-emp... > Mr. Eich’s situation is somewhat analogous to the one addressed in Nava v. Safeway, Inc., an unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal. There, the court found that an employee had a viable wrongful termination claim because Safeway allegedly fired him for opposing gay marriage. Safeway claimed to have discharged Nava for taking down a sign he considered to be pro-gay. Nava claimed he was fired for his political beliefs. > Eich therefore likely had the right to contribute to Proposition 8 as a protected political activity.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      I'm not claiming anything, just explaining the law you cited. Being fired for your political actions is entirely legal in at-will employment states like California. The law you cited does not apply, except to companies that use company policy to _coerce_ political action from employees. Firing someone for their actions does not make it company policy. Mozilla was not coercing employees to take political action by adding politics into their company policy. Mozilla was saying that for that particular position at their company, the employee's political actions were grounds to be terminated. I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but that's why what happened is legal, despite the lawyers opinion you googled.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        I understand what you're saying, but the point is you're wrong. A company cannot go around firing any employees that donates or otherwise supports a candidate from a particular party, for example. The protections read: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. [1] This not only prohibits employers from coercing employers to adopt a particular stance, it also prohibits employers from influencing employees to refrain from adoption or following any lines of politician action or activity. How could firing an employee for political donations not be considered influencing an employee to refrain from a particular line of political action. Specifically, in Mozilla was influencing employees to refrain from the political action of donating in favor of Proposition 8. > Mozilla was not coercing employees to take political action by adding politics into their company policy. Mozilla was saying that for that particular position at their company, the employee's political actions were grounds to be terminated. Again, this is not just about specifically telling employees to support a particular cause in its company policy. Employers coercing employees to refrain from adopting or following political action is prohibited too. And in this case, it is pretty explicit what political action Mozilla was trying to make employees refrain from: donating to Proposition 8. And again, people that study law say that firing Eich for his donations would have been illegal as I provided above. 1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
belorn 7y ago
Lawyers in California disagree: https://www.worklawyers.com/illegal-firings-california/ https://www.worklawyers.com/illegal-firings-california/
- bduerst 7y ago
  That's a lawyer's marketing blog selling his services to sue for wrongful termination. The labor code § 1101 they cite is the same thing: it applies only to employers using threatening to terminate in order to coerce political activity, not actually terminating someone for political actions. This is an important distinction. It is illegal for an employer to threaten all employees with termination if they do not vote on X, for example. It is not illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for taking a specific political action. Mozilla did not threaten to terminate in order to coerce action, they terminated for actions already taken place, making it legal.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > it applies only to employers using threatening to terminate in order to coerce political activity, not actually terminating someone for political actions. So your idea is that it's not okay to threaten to fire an employee over political actions, but it is okay to actually fire someone over political actions? No worker protections protects against both. Read it closely: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through _or_ by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. It prohibits both discharge and threat of discharge. The argument that Mozilla did not threaten to discharge Eich, and thus discharging Eich because of his political activity is not relevant. Both are prohibited.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      I didn't make the laws - this is what they are. GP is making the appeal to legality which is wrong in this case. The law is to prevent employers from extorting all employees into taking political action under threat of termination. Terminating a single employee for their past political actions is different from extorting all employees into action.

manfredo 7y ago

How is policy of terminating employees who donate to certain ballot propositions not amount to coercing political participation? It's directly coercing employees against donating with the threat of losing their jobs.

bduerst 7y ago
How do you know that it is Mozilla's company policy? That is the distinction based on the law that you cited. Firing someone for a reason in an at-will employment state does not suddenly make that reason part of the company policy.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Because they fired an employee specifically for their political donations. Your claim that firing employees for their political activity is ok as long as it's not a company policy and only one-off instances is not what law groups are saying. Here's one that addresses Eich's case specifically: https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-employee-political-activity/ https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-emp... > Mr. Eich’s situation is somewhat analogous to the one addressed in Nava v. Safeway, Inc., an unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal. There, the court found that an employee had a viable wrongful termination claim because Safeway allegedly fired him for opposing gay marriage. Safeway claimed to have discharged Nava for taking down a sign he considered to be pro-gay. Nava claimed he was fired for his political beliefs. > Eich therefore likely had the right to contribute to Proposition 8 as a protected political activity.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    I'm not claiming anything, just explaining the law you cited. Being fired for your political actions is entirely legal in at-will employment states like California. The law you cited does not apply, except to companies that use company policy to _coerce_ political action from employees. Firing someone for their actions does not make it company policy. Mozilla was not coercing employees to take political action by adding politics into their company policy. Mozilla was saying that for that particular position at their company, the employee's political actions were grounds to be terminated. I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but that's why what happened is legal, despite the lawyers opinion you googled.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      I understand what you're saying, but the point is you're wrong. A company cannot go around firing any employees that donates or otherwise supports a candidate from a particular party, for example. The protections read: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. [1] This not only prohibits employers from coercing employers to adopt a particular stance, it also prohibits employers from influencing employees to refrain from adoption or following any lines of politician action or activity. How could firing an employee for political donations not be considered influencing an employee to refrain from a particular line of political action. Specifically, in Mozilla was influencing employees to refrain from the political action of donating in favor of Proposition 8. > Mozilla was not coercing employees to take political action by adding politics into their company policy. Mozilla was saying that for that particular position at their company, the employee's political actions were grounds to be terminated. Again, this is not just about specifically telling employees to support a particular cause in its company policy. Employers coercing employees to refrain from adopting or following political action is prohibited too. And in this case, it is pretty explicit what political action Mozilla was trying to make employees refrain from: donating to Proposition 8. And again, people that study law say that firing Eich for his donations would have been illegal as I provided above. 1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

belorn 7y ago

Lawyers in California disagree: https://www.worklawyers.com/illegal-firings-california/ https://www.worklawyers.com/illegal-firings-california/

bduerst 7y ago
That's a lawyer's marketing blog selling his services to sue for wrongful termination. The labor code § 1101 they cite is the same thing: it applies only to employers using threatening to terminate in order to coerce political activity, not actually terminating someone for political actions. This is an important distinction. It is illegal for an employer to threaten all employees with termination if they do not vote on X, for example. It is not illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for taking a specific political action. Mozilla did not threaten to terminate in order to coerce action, they terminated for actions already taken place, making it legal.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > it applies only to employers using threatening to terminate in order to coerce political activity, not actually terminating someone for political actions. So your idea is that it's not okay to threaten to fire an employee over political actions, but it is okay to actually fire someone over political actions? No worker protections protects against both. Read it closely: > No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through _or_ by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. It prohibits both discharge and threat of discharge. The argument that Mozilla did not threaten to discharge Eich, and thus discharging Eich because of his political activity is not relevant. Both are prohibited.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    I didn't make the laws - this is what they are. GP is making the appeal to legality which is wrong in this case. The law is to prevent employers from extorting all employees into taking political action under threat of termination. Terminating a single employee for their past political actions is different from extorting all employees into action.