4 ms·

It's an interesting case. (Standard IANAL disclaimer here). http://www.lcwlegal.com/66894 http://www.lcwlegal.com/66894 Under California's Fair Employment l

by vellum 14y ago

It's an interesting case. (Standard IANAL disclaimer here). http://www.lcwlegal.com/66894 http://www.lcwlegal.com/66894 Under California's Fair Employment law, if you complain about harassment, your employer can't fire you for it. It doesn't have to be real harassment, either. She could say, "I find blue shirts to be oppressive." It's the act of complaining that they can't retaliate against. I think Sendgrid shot themselves in the foot when they explicitly said why they were firing her for complaining on Twitter. If they had just said, "She's being let go" and left it at that, they'd be in a better position, legally.

nugget 14y ago
Except she did not complain to her employer. She tweeted and made it a public issue, in a public forum, open for public discussion. The interesting legal question seems to be: Does an employee have the right to bring serious harm upon their employer as a result of an unreported, self-directed response to [perceived] sexual harassment from others [not coworkers]? And in this case, sexual harassment is quite a stretch since it was a mild joke and she was not involved in the conversation. That's a pretty big door to leave open.
- vellum 14y ago
  She did tweet and make it a public issue, but we don’t know that she didn’t also complain to her employer. There was a lot of space in between the time she tweeted their pic (3/17) and the time she got fired (3/20). I agree that overhearing a dick pun probably wouldn’t be enough to establish a hostile working environment, but you can’t fire someone for making even a baseless complaint. I don’t think serious harm really factors in when it comes to sexual harassment. Let’s say there was some horrible stuff going on and she went on CNN, then the company’s stock tanked. Could they turn around and go, “Well, you really damaged the company. Clean out your desk.”?
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > She did tweet and make it a public issue, but we don’t know that she didn’t also complain to her employer. Doesn't matter. She could be fired for the Tweet, the public action, apart from any complaint she may have made through channels. > ... but you can’t fire someone for making even a baseless complaint. Yes, you can, depending on how and where the complaint is made. > Could they turn around and go, “Well, you really damaged the company. Clean out your desk.”? Yes, if the proximate cause was her public interview, and if her public statements were malicious and/or misleading. And they were.
lutusp 14y ago
> Under California's Fair Employment law, if you complain about harassment, your employer can't fire you for it. But she wasn't fired for complaining about workplace discrimination using the available means for grievance management. She Tweeted her complaint and went so far as to risk a "false light" defamation prosecution. Not at all the same, and not acceptable behavior. > I think Sendgrid shot themselves in the foot when they explicitly said why they were firing her for complaining on Twitter. No, that's what justifies the firing. If they had said she had no right to complain, they would have been in the wrong. > If they had just said, "She's being let go" and left it at that, they'd be in a better position, legally. No, that would have opened them up to an unfair termination lawsuit. They needed to give a reason, and the reason they gave was entirely appropriate.

by vellum 14y ago

nugget 14y ago

Except she did not complain to her employer. She tweeted and made it a public issue, in a public forum, open for public discussion. The interesting legal question seems to be: Does an employee have the right to bring serious harm upon their employer as a result of an unreported, self-directed response to [perceived] sexual harassment from others [not coworkers]? And in this case, sexual harassment is quite a stretch since it was a mild joke and she was not involved in the conversation. That's a pretty big door to leave open.

vellum 14y ago
She did tweet and make it a public issue, but we don’t know that she didn’t also complain to her employer. There was a lot of space in between the time she tweeted their pic (3/17) and the time she got fired (3/20). I agree that overhearing a dick pun probably wouldn’t be enough to establish a hostile working environment, but you can’t fire someone for making even a baseless complaint. I don’t think serious harm really factors in when it comes to sexual harassment. Let’s say there was some horrible stuff going on and she went on CNN, then the company’s stock tanked. Could they turn around and go, “Well, you really damaged the company. Clean out your desk.”?
- lutusp 14y ago
  > She did tweet and make it a public issue, but we don’t know that she didn’t also complain to her employer. Doesn't matter. She could be fired for the Tweet, the public action, apart from any complaint she may have made through channels. > ... but you can’t fire someone for making even a baseless complaint. Yes, you can, depending on how and where the complaint is made. > Could they turn around and go, “Well, you really damaged the company. Clean out your desk.”? Yes, if the proximate cause was her public interview, and if her public statements were malicious and/or misleading. And they were.

lutusp 14y ago

> Under California's Fair Employment law, if you complain about harassment, your employer can't fire you for it. But she wasn't fired for complaining about workplace discrimination using the available means for grievance management. She Tweeted her complaint and went so far as to risk a "false light" defamation prosecution. Not at all the same, and not acceptable behavior. > I think Sendgrid shot themselves in the foot when they explicitly said why they were firing her for complaining on Twitter. No, that's what justifies the firing. If they had said she had no right to complain, they would have been in the wrong. > If they had just said, "She's being let go" and left it at that, they'd be in a better position, legally. No, that would have opened them up to an unfair termination lawsuit. They needed to give a reason, and the reason they gave was entirely appropriate.