Liking the Wrong Thing on Facebook Can Get You Fired

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

Supporting the competition can get you fired. What morons mentally challenged people don't realize that?

Let's put it another way. Say you were working at Woolworths, and the manager decided to run for mayor. You supported the other guy, so because of your political choice you were fired from your job at Woolworths because the manager wanted you to vote for them.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. Just like it doesn't for this case.

If they were working under a politician and were supporting the other guy, then sure, of course that's going to get you fired. But they weren't working under the Sheriff as his political advisors or whatever, they were working for the office of the Sheriff. Just because the Sheriff wants to be mayor doesn't allow him to fire those who like the other guy, just as the theoretical manager of Woolworths can't fire employees who like the other guy.

Working for someone does not obligate you to support their political decisions. Unless, as mentioned before, they really were working as his political team or something, which makes it obvious that the employees done goofed. But I highly doubt this is the case, since a detail that important is sure to have been mentioned...

Edited since I kept spelling "sheriff" wrong. >_>

 

[Fijiman]

And thus I am given yet another reason to never use Facebook.

 

[Warachia]

What does this mean? It means that the judge is a moron, when somebody "likes" something, it means they like it, if you get canned for liking something, then you are in the right when trying to sue.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

Supporting the competition can get you fired. What morons mentally challenged people don't realize that?

Let's put it another way. Say they were working at Woolworths, and the manager decided to run for mayor. You supported the other guy, so because of your political choice you were fired from your job at Woolworths because the manager wanted you to vote for them.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. Just like it doesn't for this case.

If they were working under a politician and were supporting the other guy, then sure, of course that's going to get you fired. But they weren't working under the Sherrif as his political advisors or whatever, they were working for the office of the Sherrif. Just because the Sherrif wants to be mayor doesn't allow him to fire those who like the other guy, just as the theoretical manager of Woolworths can't fire employees who like the other guy.

Working for someone does not obligate you to support their political decisions. Unless, as mentioned before, they really were working as his political team or something, which makes it obvious that the employees done goofed. But I highly doubt this is the case, since a detail that important is sure to have been mentioned...

They referred to those fired as 'his employees, civilians, uniformed deputy sheriffs... for his office'.

That's because as Sheriff, those that work for the "Sheriff's Office" (the term for those working for the Sheriff, much like the term "Police Department") are his employees, in the same way that you could say that the people who work at Woolworths are the manager's employees.

Note that if the deputies really were fired for "[hindering] the harmony and efficiency of the office", then I have no qualms with this. I'm merely arguing the point of not being allowed to fire employees due to one's political choice.

I could be missing something though, perhaps there's some point which says that if you want to be a deputy, you have to support the sheriff if he runs for mayor. If someone could clear this up that would be much appreciated, but it would be the same as the chief of the police department requiring police officers to support him if he ran for mayor, which still doesn't sit quite right with me...

 

[lacktheknack]

And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.

And that is why you don't use facebook at all.

Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.

Spoken like someone who's best friend has never moved away.

OT: Agh.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

Supporting the competition can get you fired. What morons mentally challenged people don't realize that?

Let's put it another way. Say they were working at Woolworths, and the manager decided to run for mayor. You supported the other guy, so because of your political choice you were fired from your job at Woolworths because the manager wanted you to vote for them.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. Just like it doesn't for this case.

If they were working under a politician and were supporting the other guy, then sure, of course that's going to get you fired. But they weren't working under the Sherrif as his political advisors or whatever, they were working for the office of the Sherrif. Just because the Sherrif wants to be mayor doesn't allow him to fire those who like the other guy, just as the theoretical manager of Woolworths can't fire employees who like the other guy.

Working for someone does not obligate you to support their political decisions. Unless, as mentioned before, they really were working as his political team or something, which makes it obvious that the employees done goofed. But I highly doubt this is the case, since a detail that important is sure to have been mentioned...

They referred to those fired as 'his employees, civilians, uniformed deputy sheriffs... for his office'.

That's because as Sheriff, those that work for the "Sheriff's Office" (the term for those working for the Sheriff, much like the term "Police Department") are his employees, in the same way that you could say that the people who work at Woolworths are the manager's employees.

Note that if the deputies really were fired for "[hindering] the harmony and efficiency of the office", then I have no qualms with this. I'm merely arguing the point of not being allowed to fire employees due to one's political choice.

I could be missing something though, perhaps there's some point which says that if you want to be a deputy, you have to support the sheriff if he runs for mayor. If someone could clear this up that would be much appreciated, but it would be the same as the chief of the police department requiring police officers to support him if he ran for mayor, which still doesn't sit quite right with me...

But they weren't sworn deputies. He actually wants to replace them with actual sworn deputies.

The three civilian employees weren't deputies, no, and if that's really the reason they were fired then I suppose that's also okay with me.
The three deputies were, well, uniformed deputies, and the reason given for their dismissal was the one mentioned in my previous post. But the point of this news and thread seems to be that they were fired for liking the other guy, and the reasons given by the sheriff is just what he's trying to pass off officially.

EDIT: Responding to the added part of your post.

I see what your saying tho. But I still don't think those who actively participate against an office, should stay employed in that office.

Indeed it could cause some bad feelings within the office, and could (secretly or otherwise) be the reason for not hiring someone. But as for people who are already hired, I can't help but feel that firing them for something like that is simply not right.

Aside: Thanks for responding the way you have throughout this discussion. I do enjoy these debates on occasion, and hate when they're suddenly degraded to a lower/the lowest level by the other person. ^_^

 

[z121231211]

Attending an opponents fundraiser, warrants termination from an election committee.

Trying to use Facebook as grounds for (wrongful termination) violating their first amendment rights, is fucking absurd.

Supporting the competition, during an election, can get you fired. What morons mentally challenged people don't realize that?

Attending the fundraiser I can understand, but liking the opponents Facebook page is also another way to get updates on the competition.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok constitutional BS aside, surly the Judge had to agree that they were unjustly terminated?

But they were attending the other dudes fundraisers! Why would anyone want to employ them after they turn on you like that?

Unless they were actually part of that dude's campaign, which is not the impression I got, then I don't see how it's justified that they be fired for supporting the other guy. I was under the impression that the whole point of a democratic system was that those in the system were free to support whomever they wanted without fear of consequence and I would assume that that would extend as far as a Sheriff's Department. I don't know, there's a lot I don't know about this whole issue. However based on the information I do have, this does seem like a blatant misuse of power to me, and if that's that kind of crap that guy is going to pull then maybe those guys were right to support the other guy.

 

[OniaPL]

And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.

And that is why you don't use facebook at all.

Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.

Herp derp I dislike something so it's useless herp derp.

You find me an easier and more efficient way of keeping in contact with old friends when you and they have moved in vastly separate directions.

Also find me a better way to coordinate social functions and nights out with multiple people.

Then I might not think you're being a ridiculous misanthrope for the sake of being a misanthrope.

But being a misanthrope is so edgy and cool, it makes me feel almost good about myself.

 

[Roander]

Protip: Don't friend your boss on Facebook.

If they were at-will employees, then it doesn't matter why he fired them.

If they were covered employees; firing them for political preference is a wrongful termination. Except if Roander's findings are true. Which is doesn't make much sense to me. If that isn't exclusive to the Public sector, that could lead to some serious abuse of the democratic process.

Oh well, back to video games.

Honestly I'm surprised, I would figure that the attorney would have argued that the support of the opposing candidate was the reason for firing (as it appears to be) and said support was inferred by the facebook like. Facebook likes may not qualify as free speech, but firing someone for their political affiliation is certainly illegal.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, so I looked it up. It's entirely legal in Virginia for an employer to fire an employee for political reasons. They had to turn this into a free speech issue so they could call it a civil rights violation, although I really don't see how firing someone for his (presumably expressed) political beliefs would not violate his right to free speech in all cases.

Virginia is an at-will state so yes, according to VA law he could fire them for any reason at all. That's why they had to claim a civil rights violation; so it would move from being a state law issue to a federal one, which would take precedence over any state laws.

I should probably add some disclaimers:
1) I am not a lawyer
2) My 'findings' consisted of searching for this topic on the internet and reading an article about someone who was fired specifically for his political beliefs. The case happened to be in VA, so yay for serendipity.
3) The article was from 2008. It's possible that the law has been changed since then, although I doubt that it actually has been.

 

[Syzygy23]

Would you expect a Senator or Representative to hang onto staff who give a Facebook like to their political opponents? No.
This was a pure sign of disrespect for the person they were working for and zero support. Sheriff BJ Roberts has to expect full support from his deputies when things hit the fan, and this juvenile bit on Facebook showed they have zero support for the guy. It isn't just about bruised feelings. The Sheriff's Department is law enforcement, responsible for the same risks the Police go through. If you don't have strong support from your deputies or officers, then you are liable to be left out in the cold and killed during any action.
As far as I am concerned, those people would have been better off quitting their jobs, giving their vote to the opposing guy, and then see if he wins and hires them back into the department. Otherwise they basically just stabbed their boss in the back.

The real question is, does this Sheriff DESERVE respect and support?

This is the kind of guy who FIRES PEOPLE for liking things on the internet.

And last I checked, this is the motherfucking United States of America, you can't be punished for voting for the "wrong" guy. Otherwise at least a third or so of us would be in prison on charges of a Hate Crime for not voting for Obama.

The judge is a moron for allowing this, and the sheriff is acting like a baby. Maybe the deputies liked the other guy because, I dunno, you were doing a shitty job? Maybe instead of throwing a fit of rage about it like a child and firing everyone who made you mad, you should step back and think "Am I as good as I think I am?"

MAYBE, just MAYBE, he should have asked his deputies why they liked the other guy instead of him, and then rectified the situation.

Criminy, this isn't that hard.

 

[Roboto]

And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.

And that is why you don't use facebook at all.

Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.

Finally, people getting fired for "liking" things. About time!

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

ITT: lots of people reading the title and then commenting without reading the rest of the article.

 

[shintakie10]

The issue I see isn't that they were fired. It is that because of this rulin the act of likin a page can have consequences. Couple lines I found to be freaky in the source.

"The sheriff's knowledge of the posts only becomes relevant if the court finds the activity of liking a Facebook page to be constitutionally protected," Jackson wrote. "It is the court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed in the record."

Accordin to the judge in the case, if they had gone on to their bosses opponents facebook page and gave actual support, even if said support was them bashin their current boss, that speech would be protected and they'd have a case. However the act of clickin a like button is not protected because there isn't any of your own words attached to them. That's a weird precedent to set.

It goes into more detail after that.

"Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient," he added. "It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The court will not attempt to infer the actual content of Carter's posts from one click of a button on Adams' Facebook page."

Someone is goin to have to explain to me what constitutes as a substantive statement.

[qupte] "In a case where the plaintiffs have asked the court itself to engage in extensive guesswork, an objectively reasonable official in the sheriff's position cannot be expected to engage in that same calculus," he said. "A balancing which has been difficult for multiple courts to engage is difficult more so for a sheriff attempting to ensure his actions do not impede upon the constitutional rights of his employees."
"Taking the facts in the light more favorable to the plaintiffs, Sheriff Roberts is entitled to qualified immunity," the court concluded[/quote]

Had to look up qualified immunity for this one. Relevant bit

A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.

Im not quite sure what guesswork the courts had to do. They liked a facebook page, they got fired because of it, they sued because their free speech rights were violated. The court seems to believe that because a facebook like doesn't give the exact reasons for why you pressed it, it doesn't count as a form of free speech. With that as their conclusion, the police chief firin them wouldn't have been illegal because even if it were illegal to violate someones free speech rights by firin them for that, he apparently would have no way of knowin that it would have been illegal in the first place.

Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain what all this means, but at the moment I'm stumped.

 

[MammothBlade]

Thanks for reminding me why I deleted my Facebook over a year ago.

 

[4173]

As long as he is able to remain professional about it, it would not matter. I hate so, so, SO many of the people who come into my place of work. I still treat them courteously and do what I can to help them, as that is my job. Hell same can be said about PLENTY of people. It's called, you know, professionalism?

What people don't seem to realise is that your personal life and your professional life don't have to match up. Example, a defence lawyer may personally feel that his client should rot in the deepest dungeons on earth, but professionally he will do what he can do give them the best sentence (or get them off the charge entirely) possible.

That is correct, professional life and personal life do not HAVE to match up, but corporations, politicians, and any other form of employer wants them to.
You wouldn't want to hire someone who is actively going to make you look bad would you?
You wouldn't want to hire someone who's behaviors will reflect upon you would you?
No, under no circumstances would you ever want to. A hard fact of life is you ARE judged by the company you keep. If my employees went around taking pictures of themselves snorting coke off of little boys in Taiwan, I would fire them, because their personal conduct is made public and comes back to me as a person who hires unrepentant coke addicted pedophiles.

If you show your support for your boss's opposition, you have to expect backlash. Being that this was what, a Sheriff, firing is a bit extreme. Trust exercises would be in order, but firing is the wrong thing to do, yet disgustingly at the same time justified.

(The lawyer analogy was a bad decision. Lawyers tend to have a rep as being scum sucking demons who will sacrifice everything they believe in to turn a profit.)

I would think that depends on the nature of the job. The Pepsi employee who likes Coke on Facebook is at odds with their employer because they support a competing product. Whereas, in the Sheriff's office, the sheriff is their employer in the literal sense, but is it fair to say the Sheriff is the "product?" (I'm not sure. I don't really know anything about the politics and legalities of USA policing.)