With conflict between President Trump supporters and detractors still at a fiery pitch, and with his protested inauguration still in the rearview mirror, this recent post on the Littler site might prove helpful.
In it, a boss in Sacramento, Calif., is asking the San Francisco-based employment law firm whether an employee can be fired, or at least disciplined, after the boss “saw one of my employees on the local news the other night participating in a political rally over the weekend.”
“Can I at least institute a policy prohibiting this kind of behavior going forward?” the boss asks.
Well, it all depends, Littler’s Zoe Argento writes, “on the employee’s location, the legality of his conduct, the employee’s contract, the nature of your business and the characteristics of the individual.” But best advice: Probably not a good idea and tread very carefully.
There are some state laws that prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees because of their off-duty lawful political activities. So know your state’s laws on this. According to Argento:
“In California, employers may not coerce employees, discriminate or retaliate against them, or take any adverse action because they have engaged in political activity. Similar prohibitions exist in other states, including Colorado, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. Connecticut actually extends First Amendment protection of free speech to the employees of private employers. Some of these laws provide exceptions for public or religious employers or for off-duty employee conduct that creates a material conflict with respect to the employer’s business interests. Under such laws, and absent some exception, the proposed termination or demotion of this employee because of his lawful, off-the-clock political activity would be illegal.”
Also, Argento points out, at least three states — California, Louisiana and Colorado — prohibit employers from adopting any policy, rule or regulation that forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating in politics or from running for office.
On the federal level, she says, firing or disciplining workers who engage in rallies, protests, marches or any other polticial activity could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which provides that “employees shall have the right … to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection.” She continues:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that employees may organize as a group to “improve their lot” outside the employer-employee relationship. Employees’ participation in political advocacy would therefore be protected if it relates to labor or working conditions. Such advocacy can include contacting legislators, testifying before agencies or joining protests and demonstrations. If the means used are not illegal, an employer would generally be barred from retaliating against employees who participate in these political activities outside the workplace.
“Depending on the nature of the activities your employee engaged in and his role in your organization, it may violate the NLRA to penalize him. If the employee participated in a rally concerning sick leave, minimum wage, or immigration reform, for example, that conduct would likely be protected.”
Argento signs off with some sound practical advice, that a decision to terminate or discipline an employee “should be based on an objective assessment of both the individual’s job performance and your business needs.” She writes:
“If the employee is otherwise a solid performer, and if his behavior does not interfere with the operation of your business, an adverse employment decision may be difficult to explain, undermine morale in your workforce, and, on balance, have more negative than positive results.”
Rule of thumb, she signs off, “proceed with caution” before penalizing employees for lawful, off-duty poitical activities, whether they’re frustrating to you or not.