Brendan Leipsic Capital Punishment

[yave1964]

Brendan Leipsic may be the happiest guy in the game that there is no Hockey right now.

 

  He had a series of messages from Instagram  come out a few days ago, i am not gonna get into the ones ripping women one way and another, they are out there to be read if you are so inclined, Enough to say that the Capitals  once it came to light had no choice but to cut him on the spot.

 

 He also called linemates Nick Down and Garnet Hathaway losers. And ripped on former teammate Jake Virtanen. Coke was mentioned. 

 

  

 

  Leipsic of course apologised, saying his friends instagram was hacked, blah, blah blah. Sabre AHL non prospect Jake Rodewalk was also in the thread.

 

 

And this with Tanner Pearsons wife.

 

What a tool. Leipsic has went through five teams in a short career not even counting the Predators who drafted hima nd traded him. All by 25 years old. Last year he managed 3 goals in 61 games including a stretch where he had a 34 game goalless draught. Odds are he will have to go to Europe when/if Hockey resumes.

[yave1964]

He also made fun of the legs on McDavid's girlfriend. The guy is a complete tool.

[flyercanuck]

When I heard about this I just shook my head. How stupid can a person be. 

[Podein25]

2 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

How stupid can a person be.

 

I feel like 2020 will try its damnedest to answer this question for you.

[mojo1917]

17 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

How stupid can a person be. 

There seems to be no depth to the stupidity of people.

 

[flyercanuck]

Then there's this idiot...

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 5/10/2020 at 1:47 PM, yave1964 said:

He had a series of messages from Instagram  come out a few days ago, i am not gonna get into the ones ripping women one way and another, they are out there to be read if you are so inclined, Enough to say that the Capitals  once it came to light had no choice but to cut him on the spot.

 

Oh no not this topic again.   

 

I'm the only person here on the forum that believes the NHL should have no right/authority to regulate the free speech of its players whether contractually or not. 

 

My opinion hasn't changed on this issue (the most common new issue in sports actually because they all opened this Pandora's box). If he isn't breaking the law, and even if he IS breaking the law, it is NONE OF THE NHL'S BUSINESS. We have a legal system to deal with rule breakers. Until he does something that would land him in jail and prevent him from honoring his contract, I don't believe the league should have any hand in this.

 

This is a power grab by the NHL, and other pro sports leagues. It's a power grab by large corporations. This is an attempt to control people. The NHL is positioning itself as law enforcement and judge over its players. Gary Bettman is not a police officer. Gary Bettman is not a judge. He has no authority to control players when they leave the ice. 

 

In this case we're talking about speech again. Brenden Leipsic has the right to say whatever he wants to say... without fear of punishment or retribution. He can run down women all day long. He can make jokes about midgits. He can dress like a Nazi if he wants to in his free time. What he does on social media, in bars, in hotel rooms, in his car, in his bedroom, on his patio, at his cottage, at the strip club, in a taxi cab, or anywhere not in an NHL rink....... is outside the legislative scope of any sports league or corporation. He has the right to be an a__hole and NOT have his contract terminated.

 

The NHL doesn't have to like him as a person. He's there to play hockey. That's it. He's NOT obligated to be a role model. 

[mojo1917]

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The NHL doesn't have to like him as a person. He's there to play hockey. That's it. He's NOT obligated to be a role model. 

He doesn't have to play hockey in the NHL. 

If he has violated the league's/team's code of conduct which he most likely would have signed when he signed his contract he is  subject to that policy.

It's pretty simple, the privilege of playing in the NHL comes with responsibilities .

I don't understand why you don't understand this.

[ruxpin]

11 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I'm the only person here on the forum that believes the NHL should have no right/authority to regulate the free speech of its players whether contractually or not. 

 

 

Yes.  Yes you are.   And your'e not seeming to take the right message from that, though I'm probably a bit more sympathetic to your POV on this than some.

 

People are fired from non-public jobs all the time for this kind of thing.   On the non-public side I understand the argument, except that it's usually because it has become a viral marketing/image thing for the company.   

 

The standard NHL contract, like a broadcasting job or any other super-public job, has a personal conduct clause.   You violate that, you risk disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.  Period..

 

However, and this seems to be ignored by us here in the States:    the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not have the same language as the US Constitution.    I am not a Canadian legal expert by any stretch (nor US, for that matter, but better-schooled), but the Canadian statement does not include the phrase "congress shall make no law..."    The statement in the US Bill of Rights is very narrow and specific.  It does not apply to company policies, social media idiocy, etc.   It actually doesn't apply to state governments either, but seems to have been applied that way.     Canada's simply says you have the freedom to verbally vomit all day and all night, so help you God.

 

So, I don't know how that applies in Canada with hockey players, but it seems the US standard (standard, for lack of a better term) is used.

 

In this specific case, the chutney badger knows the rules.  He didn't just break them; he flaunted them.   He made his choices.   There are other places to go play hockey.   It's not like he's actually particularly good at it, so he'll fit in better maybe on the ABC Grocery Store Company pick-up league team.  

 

In general, though, WoW, it has to suck on the player end as people.   I don't feel bad for this particular Archie Bunker wannabe, but they have to be "on" all the time.  I know the easy response is, "that's what they signed up for!" but you and I both know, most love to play the game and are excited to be signing a paper with a bunch of zeroes on it to do exactly what they grew up loving to do.

 

But I'm sure for a lot of them, the reality sets in that they sold their soul.   When they're on the ice playing or practicing or probably even when they're at dinner with teammates it probably doesn't even occur to them.   But they have to be careful what they say, do, etc., in all aspects.   Hell, even giving too small a tip or no tip to a waitress gave Drew Brees a headache for months.

 

And with company social media policies and the like, it's becoming that way for all of us.   I don't think that's a positive thing.  It's becoming an incessant circular firing squad/public stoning for anyone with the temerity to have an off day or an opinion that isn't lockstep with everyone else (and it cannot be, given the polarization of opinions and the fever in which people hold them).

 

So, I kind of get the idea that it isn't against the law to simply be an a-hole.   And while I get the frustration with the rules that have or are developing, we all know them whether we agree with them or not.   He certainly knew them.  He went out of his way to flaunt them.   He's getting what he had to know would be the consequences.   I really hope the flaunting doesn't indicate he was doing it deliberately to challenge the rules, because he really doesn't have the clout.  He will lose.

[WordsOfWisdom]

42 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

He doesn't have to play hockey in the NHL. 

 

That's analogous to saying: "He doesn't have to earn a living, put a roof over his head, or eat."

(I know we're talking about NHL players here in this thread specifically, but this topic extends to ALL workers in ALL fields.)

 

44 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

If he has violated the league's/team's code of conduct which he most likely would have signed when he signed his contract he is  subject to that policy.

 

No. The NHL's policy should be "void ab initio".  It's no different than a contract for murder. It's illegal.  I can't simply put anything that I want to in an employment contract and have you be legally bound to it.  The law is going to change on this issue real quick, mark my words. The push-back is coming. 

 

48 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

It's pretty simple, the privilege of playing in the NHL comes with responsibilities .

 

No it doesn't. He is paid to play hockey. The employer pays him for his services. He isn't bound to anything. If you were to hire a painter to come paint your home, he doesn't have to sign a contract with you stating that he won't go to strip clubs in his spare time and won't be on social media speaking ill of Donald Trump. You (as a customer/employer) have no influence over their private life. 

 

50 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I don't understand why you don't understand this.

 

I don't understand why people think this is acceptable today. This is a total violation of your freedom. This issue is as clear as day to me and the law is slowly catching up as it begins to affect more and more people. The law is going to change to support what I've been saying, just watch. I guarantee it. 

 

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

20 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Yes.  Yes you are.   And your'e not seeming to take the right message from that, though I'm probably a bit more sympathetic to your POV on this than some.

 

Fantastic. Sympathy is the first step to changing one's opinion on something. I'll do my best to make my case.   

 

21 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

People are fired from non-public jobs all the time for this kind of thing. 

 

"People are killed everyday due to gun violence."  

"Slaves picked cotton in fields every day." 

"People were stoned to death for adultery every day."

(I think you see the case being made here.)

 

"It happens all the time every day" ======>  Doesn't make it right / Doesn't mean that it SHOULD continue to happen

 

27 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

On the non-public side I understand the argument, except that it's usually because it has become a viral marketing/image thing for the company.   

 

So you're okay with a company acting in terms of its perceived financial interests rather than doing the right thing in terms of freedom of expression? 

 

I say "perceived" because the company thinks these issues affect their profits, but there's no proof to support that assertion. In fact, I wouldn't have even read Brenden's posts if not for the NHL news story making them public. Ditto for Roenick. The NHL drew attention to something that 99% of fans missed entirely. I don't follow NHL players on Twitter. Don't care enough to care. 

 

Long story short, companies are hiding behind what amounts to a financial excuse in order to justify gaining control over the personal rights and freedoms of their employees. If allowed to continue, it means large corporations would now become political powers as well, because the company will take a political stand on an issue and force all its employees to follow suit. 

 

Example: "The NHL supports an end to hunting due to animal cruelty."  A totally baseless thing but so entirely likely in today's world that something so silly could be created. Therefore, all NHL players are no longer allowed to hunt. It will be written into their NHL contracts as part of the "code of conduct". 

 

If the law simply made code of conduct clauses illegal (void ab initio)..... then the employer is off the hook automatically for the actions of its employees. The public would direct its anger where it belongs (to the player) and not to the league.

 

36 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The standard NHL contract, like a broadcasting job or any other super-public job, has a personal conduct clause.   You violate that, you risk disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.  Period..

 

It's my belief that "code of conduct" clauses should consider conduct AT WORK only, not anything in the private life of an employee.

 

Somehow, somewhere along the line, these clauses got stretched/abused to be what they are now. I believe they have gone too far.

 

38 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

And with company social media policies and the like, it's becoming that way for all of us.   I don't think that's a positive thing.  It's becoming an incessant circular firing squad/public stoning for anyone with the temerity to have an off day or an opinion that isn't lockstep with everyone else (and it cannot be, given the polarization of opinions and the fever in which people hold them).

 

That's exactly why employers need to butt out here.  It's creating a climate/culture of fear where everyone is afraid to disagree with popular opinion. History shows exactly where that leads us, and it's terrifying to think that it's happening again. 

 

40 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

So, I kind of get the idea that it isn't against the law to simply be an a-hole.   And while I get the frustration with the rules that have or are developing, we all know them whether we agree with them or not.   He certainly knew them.  He went out of his way to flaunt them.   He's getting what he had to know would be the consequences.   I really hope the flaunting doesn't indicate he was doing it deliberately to challenge the rules, because he really doesn't have the clout.  He will lose.

 

If Sidney Crosby said the exact same things, what do you think the NHL and Penguins do? Nothing obviously.

 

That creates another terrifying problem in society: Now free speech becomes the exclusive domain of the wealthiest, most successful, and most powerful people. The "rank and file" are forced to keep their mouth shut. So Sidney Crosby could speak his mind on any issue but Brenden Leipsic cannot.  

 

Hopefully I've converted you by now. That was a lot of typing.   

[Podein25]

1 minute ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

speak his mind

 

This suggests that Brendan Leipsic, who my family happens to know through hockey, has mind to begin with. He's an idiot. Dumb as a post. And a terrible human being by the looks of it.

 

Be a better man, be a better human being, then engage your mind to see what you might like to say to the world.

[mojo1917]

2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

That's analogous to saying: "He doesn't have to earn a living, put a roof over his head, or eat."

Not it is not, not even in the broadest of terms is this true.   This is a poor argument.

 

2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

No. The NHL's policy should be "void ab initio"

Yet it isn't.  Good luck getting a court to review your contract for murder. 

 

2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

No it doesn't. He is paid to play hockey. The employer pays him for his services. He isn't bound to anything. If you were to hire a painter to come paint your home, he doesn't have to sign a contract with you stating that he won't go to strip clubs in his spare time and won't be on social media speaking ill of Donald Trump. You (as a customer/employer) have no influence over their private life.

This is your big hang up and I fear you will never see this the way it is.

He is in the employ of a hockey club in the NHL, which has a standard for their clubs and those their clubs employ.

He can go play in the KHL or the SHL and write whatever he wants and see how those leagues treat it.

What he does in his private time is his business, until it becomes public. In this case he chose a very public forum in which to behave like a dipshit. Free speech does not preclude freedom from consequences, he's not going to jail, he's lost his job.  Huge, bigly difference.

2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

This is a total violation of your freedom.

My freedom to do what exactly? act like an ass? I can be an ass anywhere. Whether or not my employer is okay with having me act like an ass knowing I represent them is their call. If they decide they don't want to employ an ass, I reckon I'll need to look for another job or adjust my behavior.

 

 

 

[yave1964]

To me: 

 

A player has a right to be an ass. Period.

 

The team has the right, if said player crosses a line, terminating said contract and telling him they no longer want his services. See Avery, Kordic, Mike Richards, and many, many more who are bought out and sent on their way.

 

  Look, the contract is still being honored, he is getting paid for the remainder of this year (if there is one) but the Capitals have decided that his idiocy is enough to where they no longer want him back. Another team might, Mike Ribiero is about as bad a human as ever played the game according to many sources,  but he kept getting invited back by one team after another because he could flat out play. The moment he lost a step and a mile an hour off his previously crisp passes the offers dried up. Leipsic is a 4th liner who went 34 games this year without a goal would have likely had a difficult time getting a contract anyway, now if lets say, the Jackets are looking to add bottom six forwards to compete for a job and it comes down to Leipsic or a similar player who doesnt have his baggage for the same contract, who would you expect them to sign?  

 

  I guess if there is a rub that is it. Two standards DO exist in sports, star players have one set of rules, borderline NHLers another, but the borderline players know this and have to live by them.

 

  Wuld i have wanted Leipsic previous to this? Probably not, 5 teams by the age of 25 already puts a cloud over his head, this is probably the tipping point and should be. If he wants a career going forward it will probably be in Europe and i am totally fine with that. 

[ruxpin]

4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

If Sidney Crosby said the exact same things, what do you think the NHL and Penguins do? Nothing obviously.

 

That creates another terrifying problem in society: Now free speech becomes the exclusive domain of the wealthiest, most successful, and most powerful people. The "rank and file" are forced to keep their mouth shut. So Sidney Crosby could speak his mind on any issue but Brenden Leipsic cannot.  

 

Hopefully I've converted you by now. That was a lot of typing.   

 

Sidney Crosby.

It would probably take someone or a couple someones somewhere between Crosby and this dodo.    Because say Crosby would say some of the things Leipsic did, it MIGHT go without much comment.  Maybe a private call to him from Bettman saying, "Sid, please stop with the tweets or I'll have to start spitting.   Nah, that won't happen but please stop."

 

If it were someone at whatever the next level is, it would be interesting to see.   I think they'd probably see an attempt at a suspension or fine rather than expulsion.   But you'd also probably see a challenge to it.   I don't know that it would be successful, but I just think it would have a better shot than someone who really isn't very good to begin with.

 

You haven't converted me.   I just at least understand where you're coming from on some of it.  There are instances where the pendulum has certainly swung too far.

 

Oh, the financial interests vs. doing the right thing?    I guess I'd hope they're inline, but on the other hand, it's like complaining about the rain--it won't stop it.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I thought of a few more examples to add to the discussion here:

 

CASE #1: Tito the Taxi cab driver (my names are fictitious here obviously lol).... gets arrested for drunk driving while on his way to the cottage in his personal vehicle.

 

Let's examine the WoW "checklist":

• Did the incident occur at work?  No.
• Was it a crime?  Yes.

Now let's examine the outcome here:

• Tito gets his driver's licence suspended for 1 year.
• Tito loses his ability to drive a Taxi cab (not because of his employer, but because of a judge)
• As a result, Tito is no longer able to perform the duties of his job and is terminated.
• One year later, Tito applies for a job as a Taxi driver again. His new employer, sees a record of his driving history and the presence of a criminal record for drunk driving. Whether he gets a second chance or not is now up to the employer. 

 

CASE #2: Iron Mike Teethson, a professional boxer, bites his opponent's ear off during a boxing match.

 

Let's examine the WoW "checklist":

• Did the incident occur at work?  Yes.
• Was it a crime?  Yes.

Outcome:

• Teethson gets his boxing licence revoked for one year.
• Teethson is subject to a lawsuit and/or various criminal penalties for assault (don't think he got any though)

 

CASE #3: Iron Mike Teethson, a professional boxer, rapes a woman.

 

The checklist:

• Did the incident occur at work?  No.
• Was it a crime?  Yes.

Outcome:

• Teethson goes to jail on rape charges.
• No formal suspension by any of the boxing councils because it was outside their jurisdiction! 

 

 

Now let's look at Leipsic:

• Did the incident occur at work?  No.
• Was it a crime?  No.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

Sidney Crosby.

It would probably take someone or a couple someones somewhere between Crosby and this dodo.    Because say Crosby would say some of the things Leipsic did, it MIGHT go without much comment.  Maybe a private call to him from Bettman saying, "Sid, please stop with the tweets or I'll have to start spitting.   Nah, that won't happen but please stop."

 

We all know Crosby is a professional and doesn't conduct himself that way, but let's say he was an ass to the media (Barry Bonds), was frequently caught with strippers and hookers (Tiger Woods), and was on social media calling out fat wives of NHL players.

 

Like you said, there would be private phone calls from Bettman.... but nothing would happen. 

 

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

If it were someone at whatever the next level is, it would be interesting to see.   I think they'd probably see an attempt at a suspension or fine rather than expulsion.   But you'd also probably see a challenge to it.   I don't know that it would be successful, but I just think it would have a better shot than someone who really isn't very good to begin with.

 

Exactly. Leipsic was just "low hanging fruit".  

 

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

You haven't converted me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I just at least understand where you're coming from on some of it.  There are instances where the pendulum has certainly swung too far.

 

My thoughts exactly.  I believe the "Code of Conduct" clauses were originally created to handle conduct at work, but have been recently abused and extended to cover conduct outside of work. Since social media is new and there's no legal precedent for this, the law hasn't really caught up to the times and done anything -- yet.   

 

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

 If you had a business, would you want one of your employes insulting his co-workers and their wives on social media? How do you think that would go over in the workplace? In a team sport, that kind of cancer is even worse. It'll divide a team, and good luck winning with that.

[WordsOfWisdom]

17 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

If you had a business, would you want one of your employes insulting his co-workers and their wives on social media? How do you think that would go over in the workplace? In a team sport, that kind of cancer is even worse. It'll divide a team, and good luck winning with that.

 

The answer to your questions is remarkably simple:

 

1.) As an employer, I'm not going to be tracking what my employees say on social media. Unless they're disclosing company trade secrets, it's none of my concern. They can bad mouth the company (hello Glassdoor.com) and its employees all they want to. They're either going to do it anonymously or they'll put their name to it.  Either way, the word will get out. Given the current climate we're in, looks like anonymous is the way to go. 

 

2.) If nothing spills over into the workplace, then I don't care (as an employer). If employees aren't getting along and IT AFFECTS WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE then people will be fired. Whatever happens inside the walls of that office building is MY UNIVERSE as an EMPLOYER. When they leave the building, they leave my managerial grasp. 

 

3.) In team sports, players that don't fit in get traded. Trading a player is a LOT different than terminating their contract altogether. Teams have the freedom to trade players or to release them (while still paying the amount owing on their contract). What they do NOT have the right to do is to break the contract altogether. 

 

[flyercanuck]

5 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

The answer to your questions is remarkably simple:

 

1.) As an employer, I'm not going to be tracking what my employees say on social media. Unless they're disclosing company trade secrets, it's none of my concern. They can bad mouth the company (hello Glassdoor.com) and its employees all they want to. They're either going to do it anonymously or they'll put their name to it.  Either way, the word will get out. Given the current climate we're in, looks like anonymous is the way to go. 

 

2.) If nothing spills over into the workplace, then I don't care (as an employer). If employees aren't getting along and IT AFFECTS WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE then people will be fired. Whatever happens inside the walls of that office building is MY UNIVERSE as an EMPLOYER. When they leave the building, they leave my managerial grasp. 

 

3.) In team sports, players that don't fit in get traded. Trading a player is a LOT different than terminating their contract altogether. Teams have the freedom to trade players or to release them (while still paying the amount owing on their contract). What they do NOT have the right to do is to break the contract altogether. 

 

 

If you don't think running down your teammates on social media and making fun of a spouse won't effect a teams performance I don't know what to say.

 

 A team CAN break a contract if a player breaches it and then goes through waivers. You expect a pro athlete... ok a pro hockey player...ok most pro hockey players, to act like an adult, not a teenager. Leipsic chose to act like a 15 year old on his first drunk. He got grounded.

[mojo1917]

9 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

2.) If nothing spills over into the workplace, then I don't care (as an employer). If employees aren't getting along and IT AFFECTS WORKPLACE PERFORMANCE then people will be fired. Whatever happens inside the walls of that office building is MY UNIVERSE as an EMPLOYER. When they leave the building, they leave my managerial grasp. 

 

This is why companies now have social media clauses in their codes of conduct.

A person acting the fool on social hurts workplace morale.

 

Janet from payroll is a slut, Steve in accounts receivable was seen outside roughriders night club here's the pic...that **** happens and it's bad for business.

 

You would have problems or massive turnover or both if you were to simply bury your head in the sand regarding your employee's behavior.

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

You would have problems or massive turnover or both if you were to simply bury your head in the sand regarding your employee's behavior.

 

I don't think so because if there's one bad apple who is going around trash talking his/her fellow employees (assuming others get wind of it), then it's easy to identify who the problem character is in the office. Employers get feedback from employees all the time about who they like working with, who they don't like working with, etc...  Essentially, if you piss off your co-workers then you're going to get fired.

 

It's a situation that only needs to be dealt with if it manifests itself in the office. 

 

Here's another classic example:

 

Two co-workers date each other. The relationship ends. They still have to work together.

 

Do any of those tensions/hard feelings spill over into the workplace or can they make it work?  An employer can't say "relationships between co-workers are prohibited". It's none of their business. However, if the two people can't get along at work and it's affecting them or others in the office, then one or both of them will wind up being terminated. 

 

 

[flyercanuck]

20 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

  Essentially, if you piss off your co-workers then you're going to get fired.

 

It's a situation that only needs to be dealt with if it manifests itself in the office. 

 

 

 

 

 

. However, if the two people can't get along at work and it's affecting them or others in the office, then one or both of them will wind up being terminated. 

 

 

 

Ok, now you're arguing FOR us.

[Podein25]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Ok, now you're arguing FOR us.

 

It's a dizzying intellect WoW possesses

[pilldoc]

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-you-get-fired-for-what-you-post-on-social-media-37948

 

Can You Get Fired for What You Post on Social Media?

 

Like the answer to so many legal questions, it depends. As more and more people are using social media, this area has become a common ground for employees to post information about their jobs, their personal lives, their views and other aspects of their lives that do not pertain to their work. However, in some cases, employers may have grounds to fire employees for their social media conduct.

 

At-Will Employment

Most states are considered “at-will” states in which both the employee and employer maintain a working relationship at their own will. This means that an employee is free to quit at any time. An employer can terminate the relationship at its own will for any reason so long as it is not an illegal reason.

Some employees are outside the scope of at-will. For example, the employee may have a written employment contract that specifies the conditions under which the employment relationship can end. These employees should consult their contracts to determine if there are any grounds to terminate the relationship based on social media conduct. These grounds may be elaborated upon in a general code of conduct provision or similar provision

.

Protected Activities

The most comprehensive form of protection on this subject is in regard to the rules promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board. Employees cannot be lawfully terminated by participating in “protected concerted activity.” This generally allows employees to discuss and criticize their employer when it relates to working conditions, employment policies and decisions while talking with other workers. This is because it is legal for employees to band together in order to improve their pay and working conditions. If the employee is simply venting on social media and not attempting to actually discuss the issues with coworkers or engage with other coworkers, this conduct likely will not meet the criteria for protected concerted activity. These rules apply to all employees, not just those who work in union states or who are part of a union.

Another time when social media posts should not be used as justification to terminate an employee is when the firing is based on the employee having a protected class characteristic, such as termination based on the employee’s race, color, sex, religion, age or disability. If an employer uses the social media post on this basis, it is likely in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADEA or the ADA.

Another possible protected activity is if the employee is terminated for whistleblowing. If the employee is making the post to announce that the employer is conducting illegal activity or if he or she is acknowledging being involved in a process to fight against discrimination, the employee may be protected by whistleblower or anti-retaliation statutes.

Some states have established laws that prohibit terminating employees based particularly on social media content or on other information. For example, some states do not allow employers to terminate employees for activities that they engage in during their own time so long as the activities are legal. Other states protect the political beliefs of employees by prohibiting employers to discipline employees for making political statements.

 

Scenarios in Which Employees May Be Fired

There is a wide array of situations in which employees can be fired for their social media content. Posting trade secrets or customer lists online can be in violation of a confidentiality agreement and make the employee subject to termination.
Posting photos that reflect poorly on the employee may also be grounds for dismissal. If a company believes that an employee is poorly representing the company with lude, drunken or otherwise inappropriate pictures or content, an employer may choose to sever the relationship with the employee rather than risk tainting the business’ reputation.

Many employers prohibit the use of personal devices or social media during work hours because it tends to make employees less productive. In these situations, simply participating in social media while you are being paid may violate company policies and make the employee subject to discipline.