11th Circuit Stops Florida's "Stop Woke" Law Based on 1st Amendment

I know. I know. I keep saying there's no such thing as free speech at work. But while you workers don't have First Amendment protection in private workplaces, private employers do. Because corporations are "people" too. The distinction: the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on speech by government, not by individuals or corporations.

Confused yet? Well, I'm here specifically to discuss Florida's "Stop Woke" law* that said employers couldn't have trainings about not engaging in racism and discrimination in the workplace. The 11th Circuit just held that "Stop Woke" is a clearly illegal restriction on corporate free speech.

Here are some key excerpts from the opinion:

The State of Florida seeks to bar employers from holding mandatory meetings for their employees if those meetings endorse viewpoints the state finds offensive.  But meetings on those same topics are allowed if speakers endorse viewpoints the state agrees with, or at least does not object to.  This law, as Florida concedes, draws its distinctions based on viewpoint—the most pernicious of dividing lines under the First Amendment.  But the state insists that ordinary First Amendment review does not apply because the law restricts conduct, not speech.

The Act says employers cannot subject “any individual, as a condition of employment,” to “training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels” a certain set of beliefs.  Id.  It goes on to list the rejected ideas, all of which relate to race, color, sex, or national origin

Discussion of these topics, however, is not completely barred—the law prohibits requiring attendance only for sessions endorsing them.  Id. § 760.10(8)(b).  Employers can still require employees to attend sessions that reject these ideas or present them in an “objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.” 

 By limiting its restrictions to a list of ideas designated as offensive, the Act targets speech based on its content.  And by barring only speech that endorses any of those ideas, it penalizes certain viewpoints—the greatest First Amendment sin.  Florida concedes as much, even admitting that the Act rejects certain viewpoints. 

Florida has no compelling interest in creating a per se rule that some speech, regardless of its context or the effect it has on the listener, is offensive and discriminatory.  “It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” 

No matter how hard Florida tries to get around it, “viewpoint discrimination is inherent in the design and structure of this Act.”  NIFLA, 585 U.S. at 779 (Kennedy, J., concurring).  Given our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” the answer is clear: Florida’s law exceeds the bounds of the First Amendment.  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).  No matter how controversial the ideas, allowing the government to set the terms of the debate is poison, not antidote.

* I've written about this law before, here and here.

Does The First Amendment Mean Anti-Harassment Policies Are Illegal? Florida Court Says Yes

 In a what-the-frack moment, I took a look at what seems to be an opinion that has no relation to employment law, and realized that it has far-reaching implications. The 11th Circuit has ruled that the University of Central Florida's anti-harassment policy that applies to students violates the First Amendment.

Now, granted, as I've said before, the First Amendment only applies to governments. UCF is a government-run school. So this issue will only apply to governments. But it also seems to apply to anti-harassment policies that government employers might try to impose. And it might apply to other anti-harassment policies because of the way the Court analyzed the policy.

The issue was a student who wanted to say stuff like, "abortion is immoral," "government should not be able to force religious organizations to recognize marriages with whihc they disagree," "affirmative action is deeply unfair," and "a man cannot become a woman because he 'feels like one.'" The student said he was afraid to speak up because he might be disciplined under the university's discriminatory harassment policy, which prohibited harassment based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, non-religion, age, genetic information, sex, pregnancy, parental status, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, political affiliation, or veteran's status. 

The Court said that this policy violates the First Amendment because it is content-based, in that the "University must 'examine the content of the message that is conveyed to determine whether' it harasses another student 'based upon' any of a long list of characteristics." They said that, because it is content-based, it is subject to strict scrutiny, and that the policy is very broad. For instance, the Court points to language in the policy that says it's prohibited if the conduct "may be humiliating." 

They also said the policy is illegal because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, because it only prohibits speech that is discriminatory.

Well, duh. Of course an anti-harassment policy prohibits speech that is discriminatory. And for a court to say governments can't bar discriminatory speech opens up a can of worms for employment lawyers. Can a government discipline an employee who walks up to a Black coworker and says, "In my opinion, Black people should go back to being slaves," or who walks up to a pregnant coworker and says, "You shouldn't be allowed to work while you're pregnant or have children"? What if the person who says these things is a supervisor? 

So I say again, what the frack? If anti-harassment policies are going to be invalidated because they require employers to actually analyze what was said and whether it is discriminatory, then how can there ever be valid anti-harassment policies in government? And once the courts start saying viewpoint discrimination is illegal, then all bad actors have to do is phrase their discriminatory comments in the form of an opinion.

Will employment law be like Jeopardy? You only lose if you fail to phrase your statement in the form of an opinion?

If anyone can explain why this opinion isn't beyond outrageous, I'd love to hear from you.

10 Workplace Rights You Think you Have – But Still Don’t

So I received this email:

Ms. Ballman; 

I happened to come across your article from 2011 regarding 10 Workplace Rights You Think you Have – But Don’t. As both an attorney and a HR/Payroll consultant, your article is either outdated, specific to Florida, or just completely inaccurate. I would urge you to do your research and correct the artcle. If you would be open to discuss the areas of your article that inaccurate, I’d love to provide your details, however, I’m not going to waste my time (or yours) if you don’t care. As it stands, your article provides incorrect information and extreme disservice to employees in general. 

Best Regards,
(name omitted)

First of all, wow, how rude! Is that any way to approach someone you've never met? Yikes! It was so bizarre I thought I was being attacked by a Russian bot or something. Still, I decided to take it seriously. My initial reaction was that a 7-year-old article might well be out of date. So I reviewed it and, sure enough, it's still both accurate and timely. When I asked my emailer for specifics on what they found to be incorrect, their response was, "I’ll just let you look like you don’t know what you are talking  about, since it’s obvious you don’t care." Well, I do care, even though I'm still not sure whether I'm dealing with a Russian bot.

Anyhow, bot or not, I'm posting an updated version.

As an employment lawyer who has represented employees for 32 years, I find that everyone thinks they already know their rights. After years of watching legal dramas and courtroom reality TV, Americans have absorbed lots of legal information. Unfortunately, most of it is wrong. Before you mouth off to your boss about your rights, I thought I'd share with you the top 10 laws most employees think exist- that don't.

1. Wrongful Termination

Most American workers think employers must have a reason to fire you. Surely your employer can’t just be arbitrary and unfair. Surely they can’t just wake up in a bad mood and fire you because they didn’t like your shirt. And there’s the rub. Because, in every state but Montana, your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all unless you have a contract saying otherwise. In most states, they don’t even have to give a reason.

But that’s not right, you say. There’s a law against wrongful termination. There must be. Well, there should be, but there isn’t. What we have instead, in 49 states, is at-will employment. At-will employment is that nasty doctrine that says employers can fire at-will, for any reason or for no reason.

Oh, sure, most states recognize some exceptions to the at-will doctrine (my home state of Florida recognizes zero exceptions). Most states find that a termination that is against public policy, such as being fired for refusing to violate a law, reporting a legal violation, doing something in the public interest like jury duty, or exercising a legal right like making a worker’s compensation claim, is unlawful. Another exception a majority of states recognize is an implied contract, which sometimes allows a court to find that a handbook or employer policy is a legal contract. A few states hold that employers owe employees an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but most let employers be as arbitrary as they want to be.

Other protections employees have in the 49 at-will states are: contracts, whether individual or union, saying they can only be fired for cause; discrimination laws; whistleblower laws; the Family and Medical Leave Act; and state and federal employment laws.

But my point is this: if a majority of Americans think employers must have good cause to fire you, why isn’t there a law? Why haven’t legislators who are supposed to represent workers’ interests passed the number one legal protection employees think they have? Legislatures could pass a law like Montana’s Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act of 1987, which lets employees terminated without good cause sue for up to 4 years of lost wages.

We, as taxpayers, are footing the bill for employers who make arbitrary employment decisions. Why not make employers who fire employees without just cause pay for their arbitrariness? Why not at least penalize arbitrary employers through the unemployment compensation system. Why not lift the maximum rate employers can be charged to these arbitrary employers? Why skew the system to punish employees but not employers?

By continuing to allow arbitrary firings without consequences to employers, we end up forcing the unemployed onto food stamps, welfare, and other taxpayer-supported benefits. And small business owners like me end up paying for these arbitrary employers by having higher unemployment compensation tax rates.

2. Right To See Your File

You probably don't have this right, so don't go stomping into HR and making demands. No federal law requires private employers to allow employees to inspect or copy their own personnel files. Only some states require employers to allow you to look at your file and even fewer require your employer to allow you to copy items in your file. Many times, the only way you'll find out what's in your file is if you sue and you get it with a Request for Production, or if you subpoena it in unemployment or other proceedings.

3. Breaks

No federal law requires employers to offer any work breaks for anything, even meals. Some state laws do require work breaks, but it's not a majority. No federal law even requires bathroom breaks, but it's probably a health issue, so OSHA might protect you if your employer denies bathroom breaks. If you're a nursing mother, you're entitled to an unpaid break to express breast milk. Some states also offer protection for nursing moms taking breaks. Lots of people get fired for insisting on breaks they're not entitled to. Don't do it.

4. Hostile Environment

A hostile environment is not illegal. Workplace harassment is not illegal. Bullying is not illegal in any state except, oddly enough, Tennessee, and that's only for government employees. If you write a long email to HR or your boss complaining that you are being "harassed," or, you're "in a hostile work environment," you aren't protected against retaliation. While harassment due to race, age, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or another legally-protected category is illegal, just plain "harassment" is not. So reporting it that way doesn't protect you against retaliation. When I ask why people didn't report that they were being treated differently than coworkers of a different race, sex, etc. they usually say something like, "I didn't want to go there." Well, if you'd gone there, firing you for your complaint would have been illegal. But firing you for saying you were harassed or bullied: not illegal.

Appropriate remedies may be to discipline or warn the harasser, to move the harasser, under some circumstances to move the victim, to do training, or in extreme cases, to terminate the harasser. But they don’t have to take any action at all. They only have a duty to maintain a safe workplace. You might still have to work with the harasser. Don't say you refuse to work with the harasser. You might be fired for refusing to work. If you return and are retaliated against or continue to be harassed, report it again.  If the employer allows retaliation or continued harassment, that is the time to get an attorney involved.

5. First Amendment In Private Workplaces

Only government employees have free speech protections, and those are very limited. Otherwise, you can be fired in most states for your speech (including political speech) in the workplace or outside the workplace. You can't be fired for speaking on behalf of coworkers in order to improve work conditions or for objecting to something illegal, but be very careful to make sure you're protected before you speak out.

If you're complaining about working conditions, reporting discrimination, objecting to not being paid overtime, or reporting illegal activity, you are likely legally protected in every state. 

In some states, employee speech about politics is protected. In Florida, it's a felony to "discharge or threaten to discharge any employee in his or her service for voting or not voting in any election, state, county, or municipal, for any candidate or measure submitted to a vote of the people." California, Colorado, New York, North Dakota and Louisiana say it's illegal to retaliate against an employee for their off-duty participation in politics or political campaigns. Here in Broward County, it's illegal to fire employees based upon political affiliation. If you work for government, there's the good old First Amendment to protect you. Plus, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation/activity discrimination against federal employees. 

Speech about religion, women’s (or men’s) rights, and unionization is almost always protected.

Otherwise, you don't have free speech rights at work. Be very sure you have legal protection before speaking out.

6. Privacy At Work

Your boss can read your work e-mails and monitor your Internet usage at work. If your employer is going to listen into or record phone calls, there are some legal restrictions. You also have privacy rights in your medical information. There is no federal law protecting your social security number, but California, Texas and New York do offer limited protection against employers displaying your number.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically says your company can't intercept your emails. The problem is, it has exceptions for consent. That means if your company has a policy on email interception or had you sign an agreement, a handbook, or anything else they managed to slip in front of you agreeing that email at work belongs to them, they skate. The law also says it's legal to monitor your email if the company is the email provider or if they monitor your email in the ordinary course of business, such as for customer service.

In other words, there are so many loopholes that your company probably fits into one. Until the courts say otherwise or Congress tightens this law, it likely doesn't help you.

Some states have a tort called "intrusion on seclusion" or "invasion of privacy." There are some protections against highly offensive conduct that's intrusive. The problem is, you probably won't be able to prove you had any expectation of privacy in your emails or other activities at work.

7. Right To Work

I hear all the time, "But this is a right to work state!" Usually while I'm reviewing a non-compete agreement. Right to work doesn't mean your employer can't restrict your ability to work for competitors after you leave. What it means is they can't make you join a union in order to work there. Some states, but not all, are right to work states. If your supervisor tells you that signing a non-compete agreement is meaningless or that it won't be enforced, they are lying to you.

8. Retaliation

There is no law prohibiting an employer from retaliating against you for reporting or objecting to policy violations, ethical violations, bullying, or the fact that your boss is a jerk. If you do something that puts you in a legally protected category, you may be protected from retaliation. Examples would be objecting to discrimination, making a worker's comp claim, or taking Family and Medical Leave. If you're reporting something illegal the company is doing, you may be a protected whistleblower, but you'd better research the specific whistleblower laws that apply, because there are many hoops to jump through on some whistleblower cases.

If you complained about working conditions on behalf of yourself and coworkers, you may be protected against retaliation under the The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects employees who engage in concerted activity to improve working conditions.

For more about when retaliation may be illegal, check out my post on that topic.

9. Discrimination Because Your Boss Doesn't Like You

If your boss is discriminating against you for being you, that isn't illegal. Favoritism, nepotism, and being obnoxious are generally not illegal. Discrimination based on age, pregnancy, race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, color and genetic information are illegal. In some states, other categories such as sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and being a domestic violence victim are protected.

10. Suing the Boss

As much as it may be satisfying to sue your ex-boss personally, you probably can't. Federal and many state discrimination laws, Family and Medical Leave Act (in some states the courts disagree on this), and most other employment laws simply don't allow it. One major exception is wage and hour violations. Some state discrimination laws do hold supervisors liable for violations. But what's the point? Unless they're rich, you probably won't be able to collect anyhow.
Well that's wrong. What can I do about it?

Since most people think these laws exist, maybe it's probably high time for them to actually be passed. E-mail your congressperson and state representative now and complain if you don't like the fact that you're not protected. Here's how to find out how to contact your representative in Congress:
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative

Here's a website with contact information for elected officials at the state and federal level:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

You do have rights. Among them is the right to vote. If you don't like the law, exercise it and tell your representatives you demand some legal protections. In the meantime, don't get yourself fired by getting your legal advice from television. When in doubt, contact an employment lawyer in your state about your legal rights at work.

Roseanne, the NFL, and Employee Free Speech at Work

There are two big stories in the headlines involving employee speech and the consequences thereof. If you haven't heard of both, welcome back from the coma. The most recent was Roseanne Barr's racist tweet rant, which resulted in the cancellation of her number 1 rated TV show, Roseanne. Then there has been the ongoing saga of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem in protest over the extreme number of police killings of black people. The NFL recently decided to impose penalties on teams with players who kneel, but will allow them to stay in the locker room.

So, let's first address the elephant in the room. What about free speech? I have to keep saying this, and I shouldn't: there is no free speech in the workplace unless you work for government. Even working for government, your free speech is limited.

Do the NFL players and Roseanne have any rights in this situation? Maybe.

Roseanne is a well-known star. She has a contract with the network. If she had a good agent or lawyer, she likely has a clause protecting her in this situation. If I were negotiating, I might have demanded that the network agree not to cancel the show if ratings were over a certain number. Or that the network guarantee a certain number of shows. I don't know what her contract says. However, it may also have a clause allowing the network to cancel if the stars engaged in behavior that they deemed damaging to the network. Depending on the language of such a clause, a racist rant may well mean the network was within its rights.

Had there been no contract, the network could cancel for any reason or no reason at all, because employees in every state but Montana are at-will unless there is a contract saying otherwise.

The other issue is whether the network should have canceled the show. On that issue, I have to come down in the yes column. They are now on notice of her propensity to engage in race discrimination. Now that they are on notice, if they allow her to continue and she discriminates against cast or crew, they could be liable for punitive damages. I don't see that they had any choice here. There is also the issue of sponsors. If sponsors backed out in droves, that would similarly justify the cancellation.

Now, on to the NFL. The players have a union. This new requirement that they not kneel may well violate the NFL's obligation to collectively bargain regarding terms and conditions of employment. I suspect we'll hear more from the union on that issue.

Should the NFL have done this? On the one hand, some fans were freaking out about the kneeling. But they still keep concession stands open so nobody is freaking out about buying hot dogs during the anthem. These are players quietly and respectfully protesting discrimination. There is nothing about the protest that shows any propensity to engage in discrimination like Roseanne. I, personally, would not organize a protest in a way that allowed the opposition to question my patriotism, but this is how they chose to protest, and I think they should be allowed to do so as long as they do so respectfully, as they have done. I understand the NFL's wanting to end the controversy, but I think they just managed to step it up instead.

Overall, the lesson to those of us who aren't multi-millionaires with big contracts is that there is no free speech in the workplace in America.

Can You Be Fired For Being A Racist A**hole? Yes. Well, Maybe. Probably.

So, a Twitter campaign has been outing folks who attended the Nazi/white supremacy/alt right rally outside the University of Virginia in which a Nazi murdered a protester and injured many others by plowing into them with a car. Some of those who have been outed were promptly fired. I've been asked whether firing someone for attending a racist rally is legal.

The answer is yes. Well, maybe. Probably. There. Are you happy?

An employer who is aware of an employee's propensity to engage in race or national origin discrimination (or any other kind of discrimination) has a duty to maintain a safe workplace. That means firing or disciplining the worker, or taking other steps to make sure he or she doesn't engage in illegal harassment or discrimination in the workplace. An employer that fails to take action could be liable for punitive damages if the racist employee acts on his/her beliefs at work.

Thus, my initial answer, which is yes, you can be fired for being a racist a**hole. However.

Some states and local governments have laws protecting you from discrimination due to your political affiliation or activities. For instance, California, Colorado, New York, North Dakota and Louisiana say it's illegal to retaliate against an employee for their off-duty participation in politics or political campaigns. Here in Broward County, it's illegal to fire employees based upon political affiliation. If you work for government, there's the good old First Amendment to protect you. Plus, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation/activity discrimination against federal employees.

Thus, my second answer. Maybe. This is one of those situations where two laws rub up against each other. I would think a strong argument could be made that attending a rally like last weekend's would give an employer a legitimate reason other than political affiliation to fire or discipline an employee. Once the employee starts spewing racist stuff in public and waving swastikas, that may well cross a line. Will the courts decide that the employer has a legimate business to protect? Maybe. Even with government employees, the government may well be able to prove that the employee's free speech rights were outweighed by the government's right to efficient and orderly operation.

If, however, the employee has always been respectful to coworkers and customers of color and continues to do so after the rally, maybe the employer doesn't have a legitimate reason other than political affiliation to fire the person.

Still, I default to my third answer, probably. Most states have no legal protection for political firings. So most employees have no legal protection if they attend a racist rally. The employer probably has a duty to protect coworkers and customers from a racist. I suspect most courts will say firing someone for attending a racist rally that turned murderous is perfectly legal, maybe even required.

Two First Amendment Rights, Only One Protected: Last Man Standing (Sort Of) Gets It Right

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Tim Allen's show Last Man Standing. Guilty because, unlike the very apolitical Home Improvement, Tim Allen uses his new vehicle to take some slaps at President Obama and liberals in general. In a recent episode, Three Sundays, they addressed two rights protected by the First Amendment, how these rights play out in the workplace, and sorta kinda got them right. However, they didn't explain why one right was protected and one wasn't so I will.

Free Speech: The first issue was the right to free expression. Ryan, the despised-because-he's-a-liberal father of Mike's (the Allen character's) grandchild, has a blog where he posts pictures and criticizes situations he finds on the road (where he's a trucker for a beer company), such as environmental issues and encroachments on Native American land. His company takes umbrage and demands he take down the blog. The problem? He's wearing his uniform in the pictures. Mike tells him it's the right choice to take down the photos. Ryan asks, "I thought you supported my right to free speech, Mike?" Mike responds, "I do, but I also support your company's right to tell you to stuff it."

Mike got it right. As I've said before, the First Amendment doesn't protect your right to free speech at work. People freaked out when I wrote about this in the context of Duck Dynasty. Fewer cared about Ozzie Guillen when he commented about his love for Fidel. Your employer can fire you if they don't like your speech at work. The one exception that's notable is that they can't fire you if you aren't a supervisor and are talking to coworkers or to management on behalf of coworkers about working conditions. Had Ryan's blog been about working conditions then it may well have been protected.

Freedom of Religion: Kyle, the not-so-bright coworker and boyfriend of one of Mike's daughters, is being forced to work on Sundays and he wants time off to go to church. He asks Mike: "Do I have an amendment for my freedom of religion?" Mike says, "It's the same one.You can practice whatever religion you want. Nobody can tell you any different." Kyle then goes on to insist that his boss give him time off for church on Sundays. Here's where the show missed the boat. Kyle's right to have time off isn't from the First Amendment. It's from Title VII, the anti-discrimination law so hated by conservatives like Allen. Among other things, that law requires employers to grant reasonable accommodations for religious reasons and religious practices.

So, while you have rights under the First Amendment, those right aren't protected at work. However, federal and state discrimination laws protect you from religious discrimination. Will we hear Allen making any pro-Title VII comments on the show? Doubtful. And that's probably why he didn't mention it on the show. Title VII protects everyone - black, white, Hispanic, Protestant, Muslim, Atheist, Cuban, American, male, female -from discrimination at work. It probably protects you. It even protects Tim Allen in his workplace, real or fictional.

As Ozzie Guillen Learned the Hard Way, There’s No Free Speech in Corporate America

The Miami Marlins suspended new Manager Ozzie Guillen for saying: “I love Fidel Castro,” and "I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that mother-f***er is still here."

First it was reported as a suspension without pay, but it turns out it’s a suspension with pay. He had to apologize for his remarks. No question; his remarks offended most of the community his employer serves. While you may not think they were that bad, trust me: the Cuban community was offended. If you don’t follow Cuban politics, just imagine someone saying they admire the KKK, Hitler or Bin Laden and you’ll get the drift.

Did he mean to offend? Probably not. Were the company’s customers upset? Absolutely. Still, some folks expressed shock that an employer could punish an employee for espousing his opinion. “What about the First Amendment?” they cried.

I’ve said it in my book and I’ll say it again. There is no free speech in corporate America. The First Amendment protects us from government action, not the actions of private companies. That means you can be fired because your private employer doesn’t like what you said (or what you wore), with very few exceptions.

Mr. Guillen got off easy compared to Brooke Harris, who was fired from her job as a teacher in a charter school for teaching about the Trayvon Martin case. Why the difference? Guillen probably has a contract saying he can only be fired for cause. Martin probably has no contract to protect her, and her state, like every state in the union but Montana, is an at-will state, meaning she can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

Not all speech is unprotected. Here are some circumstances where your speech might have some legal protection:

Concerted activity: If you get together with coworkers or take action on behalf of at least one other coworker (not just on your own behalf) to protest or try to change working conditions, you may be protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). NLRA says in Section 7: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, . . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .” NLRA also makes it unlawful for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” Neither Mr. Guillen nor Ms. Harris fits here.

Objecting to discrimination: If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. Ms. Harris might have fit into this category if she were objecting to discrimination by her employer, but it doesn’t apply to objecting to other types of discrimination.

Political affiliation: Some states, counties and cities have laws prohibiting discrimination based on political affiliation. Mr. Guillen’s remarks might have fit within this category if his local government or state had such a prohibition. Had he been in the county just north of Miami, Broward County, there is an ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. Would he have filed a complaint? Doubtful. He kept his job and lost no money.

Objecting to illegal activity: If you’re objecting to an illegal activity of your employer, you might be a protected whistleblower. That certainly doesn’t help either Mr. Guillen or Ms. Harris.

Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for activities outside work. However, even those laws have exceptions for activity that affects the employer’s reputation or the ability of the employee to do their job. There’s little doubt that Guillen’s comments both reflected on the Marlins and affected Guillen’s ability to get his job done, as demonstrated by the multiple protests that occurred.

Contract: This is what probably saved Mr. Guillen. If you have a contract saying you can only be fired for cause, then check what is says constitutes “cause.” Offending 70% of the customer base may well be cause (but it might not). It all depends on how it was drafted. Best read up before you give any press interviews if you think you’re protected.

Before you spout off at work (or anywhere) about something your employer might deem offensive, remember how little protection you have.

Employers are watching more and more closely. They want your Facebook password. They watch what you post on Twitter. They read your email messages at work. They look at the websites you visit. Soon, they’ll be asking to read your diary. Heck, if it’s on your work computer, they’ve probably already read it. Will they start asking for an extra copy of your house key? I predict some employer will do this within the next couple of years.

Watch what you say, and especially what you email, text or post, even while you’re at home. If you’d be embarrassed to see it on the front page of the company newspaper, you probably shouldn’t put it on your Facebook page.

There’s no free speech in corporate America. Big employer is watching.