3 ms·

Missouri Statute § 130.028.

by defen 3y ago

clipsy 3y ago
Thank you. For those wondering, the text of the state is here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=130.028 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=130.028 I'll be interested to see how this plays out; I generally support laws that protect employees from being fired based on what they say and do outside of work, but it seems like there's an obvious issue where comments made outside of work could create a hostile work environment under (eg) the CRA. (I don't know if this case in particular is anything of the sort, to be clear.) My bet is on Block settling rather than taking on a fight that Twitter/Musk will almost inevitably appeal to as high a court as will hear it.
- GabrielTFS 3y ago
  What is "CRA" referring to here ? I can't find any reference to what that acronym means when looking it up...
- venusenvy47 3y ago
  I read the statute and I'm confused why it applies. It talks about integrity of elections and not forcing people to vote a certain way.. 130.028. Prohibitions against certain discrimination or intimidation relating to elections — contributions by employees, payroll deduction, when...
dragonwriter 3y ago
Publicly using a pair of slurs about a coworker regarding an in-office interaction (the “Bathroom Post”), which were apparently seen and reported by some (whether different or the same) coworker, is not merely “expressing political views”, it is textbook work-related harassment–not enough for an employer to be liable to another employee for on a single incident, but for which an employer can be held responsible if it persists. This seems a lot like it is nearly as much of a meritless political stunt suit as Elon’s recent SLAPP suit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
- defen 3y ago
  It's not clear if it was about a real coworker (she started working remotely "in October", and the post itself was made on October 17). It's also not clear that it was reported by a coworker - according to the lawsuit Block did not say whether any employees had complained. I'm sure there is tons of overlap between Block and Twitter so it might have just been backchanneled. Maybe it will come out in the lawsuit.

Missouri Statute § 130.028.

by defen 3y ago

Missouri Statute § 130.028.

Thank you. For those wondering, the text of the state is here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=130.028 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=130.028 I'll be interested to see how this plays out; I generally support laws that protect employees from being fired based on what they say and do outside of work, but it seems like there's an obvious issue where comments made outside of work could create a hostile work environment under (eg) the CRA. (I don't know if this case in particular is anything of the sort, to be clear.) My bet is on Block settling rather than taking on a fight that Twitter/Musk will almost inevitably appeal to as high a court as will hear it.

GabrielTFS 3y ago
What is "CRA" referring to here ? I can't find any reference to what that acronym means when looking it up...
venusenvy47 3y ago
I read the statute and I'm confused why it applies. It talks about integrity of elections and not forcing people to vote a certain way.. 130.028. Prohibitions against certain discrimination or intimidation relating to elections — contributions by employees, payroll deduction, when...

dragonwriter 3y ago

Publicly using a pair of slurs about a coworker regarding an in-office interaction (the “Bathroom Post”), which were apparently seen and reported by some (whether different or the same) coworker, is not merely “expressing political views”, it is textbook work-related harassment–not enough for an employer to be liable to another employee for on a single incident, but for which an employer can be held responsible if it persists. This seems a lot like it is nearly as much of a meritless political stunt suit as Elon’s recent SLAPP suit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

defen 3y ago
It's not clear if it was about a real coworker (she started working remotely "in October", and the post itself was made on October 17). It's also not clear that it was reported by a coworker - according to the lawsuit Block did not say whether any employees had complained. I'm sure there is tons of overlap between Block and Twitter so it might have just been backchanneled. Maybe it will come out in the lawsuit.