4 ms·

An employee can claim that politics, affiliation, etc. was a pretext for firing based on religious beliefs.

floatingatoll 6y ago
Given that this statement is false — "Gab and Parler are religious social networks" — a judge would likely require a pattern of hostility to be shown, or for the firings to coincide with expression of protected religious beliefs that are not also considered hate speech. (If they're considered hate speech, they're no longer protected expression, regardless of whether they're claimed to be religion or not.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  You know this how? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri... Specifically: “ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Matter rally, but employees of other races are not fired for going to marches, rallies, or protests, that might qualify as illegal race discrimination. ” You don’t have enough information to say either way, and the law and courts aren’t as cut-and-dry as you want to believe.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    We’re making the same point. They have to show that there was discrimination against protected beliefs. The employer’s currently-stated position does not meet that bar. If the ex-employee has evidence that hasn’t been published by the employer, then they could win in court, if they can convince the court that their evidence is sound.
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      Looks like it. I never implied that it was automatic, but it’s the details that will make/break the case, if it were to go to court. Even the social media choices may be subject, because it may depend largely on how the employer perceived it at the time.
- kenneth 6y ago
  Say you refuse to hire or fire people from a predominantly black neighborhood — not because they're black, but based on the neighborhood — it's pretty accepted these days that that's discriminatory and not allowed. But now liberals here are saying that refusing to hire or firing people from a predominantly Republican and/or Christian social network is different. It's the same. That position is hypocritical regardless of whether you think it should be legal.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    You haven’t established that the real reason was her religion - rather than it being anything else.

Given that this statement is false — "Gab and Parler are religious social networks" — a judge would likely require a pattern of hostility to be shown, or for the firings to coincide with expression of protected religious beliefs that are not also considered hate speech. (If they're considered hate speech, they're no longer protected expression, regardless of whether they're claimed to be religion or not.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nobodyandproud 6y ago
You know this how? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri... Specifically: “ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Matter rally, but employees of other races are not fired for going to marches, rallies, or protests, that might qualify as illegal race discrimination. ” You don’t have enough information to say either way, and the law and courts aren’t as cut-and-dry as you want to believe.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  We’re making the same point. They have to show that there was discrimination against protected beliefs. The employer’s currently-stated position does not meet that bar. If the ex-employee has evidence that hasn’t been published by the employer, then they could win in court, if they can convince the court that their evidence is sound.
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    Looks like it. I never implied that it was automatic, but it’s the details that will make/break the case, if it were to go to court. Even the social media choices may be subject, because it may depend largely on how the employer perceived it at the time.
kenneth 6y ago
Say you refuse to hire or fire people from a predominantly black neighborhood — not because they're black, but based on the neighborhood — it's pretty accepted these days that that's discriminatory and not allowed. But now liberals here are saying that refusing to hire or firing people from a predominantly Republican and/or Christian social network is different. It's the same. That position is hypocritical regardless of whether you think it should be legal.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  You haven’t established that the real reason was her religion - rather than it being anything else.