American Laws

Ordinary Americans can afford an initial consultation with a lawyer, but usually not the entire fee associated with a complicated lawsuit; however the lawyer's fees and court costs are usually included in the damages awarded in the case.
Will the ordinary American fight for their rights? It just depends on the person. Some won't because they don't want all the attention. Some won't because they're afraid of retaliation. Some won't because it's a lot of trouble to do so.
As for this particular woman, we don't know what her employment contract says. It may or may not include her behavior outside of regular work hours.

Thank you for your answer.



I think even if the contract includes the employees' behaviours outside of the regular hours, in case the company codes or contract conflicts with the laws, then the contract or the part of the contract is invalid. If the clause of laws conflict with the Constitution, then the clause of the law is invalid.

Of course, I almost knew nothing about American laws, how American laws are practised or actually practised leave to you and/or other (American) forum members to explain or share the opinions of yours.

My understanding is that constitutional rights apply to what the federal government can and cannot do. Companies and individuals have more latitude.

If you think it's wrong for an individual's expression off the job and not in a company uniform to be cause for dismissal, I certainly agree.

Thank you for your answer. I thought "Freedom of Speech" within the frame of laws was virtually a faith of almost every American, that I learnt from here, especially from American movies, media, etc.

One cannot be bound by a contract, including an employment contract, which forces the employee to surrender their "privileges and immunities" (the language of the XIVth amendment to the constitution). However, as Mr. Binks notes, the remedy is a civil suit, because your employer cannot be said to have committed a criminal act. As also noted, you would have to pay at least an initial consultation fee. Thereafter, the process if pretty straight-forward. If you have consulted a competent attorney, he or she might take your case on "contingency," which means that said attorney gets a percentage of any settlement or judgment you receive. Commonly, they want 40% of any settlement or judgment--sometimes as much as 50% if they think the case will take a long time, and that they might need to employ others to research case law. But if the attorney won't take on contingency, and instead wants their normal fees or an hourly rate, that means they don't think you can win, and you'd be a fool to spend your money. If an attorney accepts a contingency fee, you only pay if you win, so they are only likely to do so if they feel certain you will win.

I agree that this is an injustice, but it is unlikely that any good attorney will take that case on contingency.

As also pointed out, constitutional law only binds government--due to a process known as incorporation, the first amendment binds all levels of government. But it cannot bind private persons. You have no right to say anything you want at my house, or at your place of employment. That is why a civil suit in this case would have to (probably, I'm not an attorney) refer to one's privileges and immunities. Perhaps an honest-to-dog attorney will show up to make a fool of us all.

Thank you for your input.


I had thought in the US everyone, every organisation, every company, and every government were subjected to the Constitution and its Amendation. Is it not true or just not practical in reality?

So people will have to watch their behaviour and words to avoid their remarks conflicts with their employers. Correct?

I heard about if in the US any employers racially discriminate their employees, it is very likely the employees would file a lawsuit about this, and ask for compensations, so people have to handle very carefully. I guess this is not uncommon.

But why does it seem difficult for the woman in the report to defense her right about freedom of speech?

If this case was not covered by the media, probably just a few attorney would like to help this woman, and I understood people need to make a living but do not charity all day long. But if I were an atorney there and I were a nobody, it would be a great chance to promote my business, as the media has thrown the spotlight on it.

And I assume there are people who don't just survive but also want to live in with their faith- the right of freedom of speech with the frame of the laws. I mean probably some attorneys would do this for the faith. Am I completely out of the touch of people in the American reality again?

No, constitutional imperatives, such as freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, the right to peaceably assemble--all first amendment rights--only apply in public places. Private residences and workplaces are not public places. You can say what you like in public, but not in my home, nor in any workplace which I or anyone else, or any corporate body owns, because those are private places. So the provisions of personal rights, privileges and immunities only apply to governments and government officials and employees, and in public.

You cannot speak freely in a private space if the owner of the space does not wish it. You cannot practice your religion in a private space if the owner does not wish it. You cannot assemble in a private space if the owner does not wish it. Otherwise, you would be denying that owner the rights which you assert yourself. An effective framework of government must balance the rights of the state and of the people, which also means the rights of individuals or private corporate bodies to control what goes on in their privately owned spaces. If government were to intrude in those privately owned spaces would be as great a tyranny as it would to forbid people to speak freely in public.

It is not understood outside the United States that many rights of the citizen are not necessarily honored in private spaces, such as the workplace. For this woman to assert her rights, she would have to be able to show beyond a doubt that she was discriminated against on the basis of what she had said, while she was outside the workplace. That would not be an easy thing to prove, and you can bet that her employer's attorneys would cobble together all manner of allegations against her that would have nothing to do with her public remarks. For obvious reasons, she wouldn't likely want her job back, but that is why she would need to instigate a civil action.

No part of the constitution addresses the issue of discrimination based on political affiliation, political activities or political speech. There is a Federal law, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, one portion of which prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation of political speech, but it only applies to Federal employment. Otherwise, it depends on the laws of each state--and there are fifty states. Some states have laws which prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation, political activity and political speech in public. No law can prevent an employer from prohibiting political activity or political speech in the workplace, except for union organizing. Employers cannot prevent union organizing nor fire people for doing so, as long as it does not involve interference in the work being done.

But this is not the case here, and if that woman lives in a state which does not prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation, political activity or political speech in public, the employer has committed no crime, and she can only seek redress in a civil suit. That is why I mentioned the XIVth amendment in my earlier post. The first paragraph of that amendment reads, in its entirety:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is one of the most frequently litigated passages in the constitution. A lawyer is only likely to take on a case like this woman has if he or she feels that it can be shown that this woman has been discriminated against and therefore denied the equal protection of the law. It would be a difficult and convoluted case, because it would have to be shown that other employees expressing different political ideas in public had not been punished or fired. Even that would be a dubious basis for such a case, if the state in question has no law against discrimination on a political basis.

Thank you for your comment again.

I agree and understand that freedom of speech should be outside of private propertes, and organisations.

For example, in the US it is illegal for a Christian to go to a mosque to promote Christianity; likewise it is illegal for a Muslim to go to a church to promote Islam. I understood, and think it is fair.

But as to the woman, she flipped off President Trump in the public, specifically on the road where she was cycling. I don't figure out why her then company had any right to interfere woman to express her political opinion in public, on the road, out of work time. She never claimed she standed for the company or wore the company uniform or the logo at all.

She worked for the company, and she was supposed to make her behaviour in compliance with the company codes only within work place and work hours. Beyond that, she is a free person and do whatever she want to do within the frame of laws.

It's legal for a Christian to go to a mosque and try to promote Christianity. However, the owner of the mosque or his agent can have you removed legally if he doesn't want you there. Same goes for a Muslim going to a Christian church.

The people of the US are bound by the Constitution. However, the First Amendment only says the government cannot arrest you for saying controversial things. The First Amendment says nothing about your boss continuing to keep you after he heard what you said. Imagine the head of a kosher wine company finding that his general manager was on TV down in Charlottesville wearing a swastika Tshirt and saying that Jews cause all the problems in the world. The winery's owner can fire him as soon as the guy comes into work the next work day, and the First Amendment would allow this, since the winery is not part of the government.

Thank you for your correction. Next time, I need to do some homework via Internet searching before taking anything for granted.

In Britain we have Employment Tribunals, which are a type of court. Workers who consider they have been unfairly treated or dismissed can bring a case for free. Just this week, an orthodox synagogue was found to have unfairly dismissed a female nursery teacher because she was living with her boyfriend without being married. A future hearing will set a compensation award.

Centrox:
We have similar boards, both at the state and Federal levels, which can determine compensation if unfairly let go. However, saying or doing things on your own time which reflect badly on the company is generally considered a good reason for firing someone by these boards over here.

Sure, if it reflects badly on a company, like if the offender is wearing a company uniform or driving a vehicle with company markings.

In the case I mentioned above, the tribunal held that the synagogue was not entitled to dismiss the teacher merely because she lived with her boyfriend.

I think the workers compensation board has probably decided the same thing over here, at least in many cases. However, as the next post will illustrate, there are still things you can do on your own time which will result in your firing.

Quote roger:

You don't have to be wearing company markings or uniform all the time, though. Here's a case where somebody was not doing something wearing the job's uniform.

Fired for flying Confederate flag, Georgia officer sues
By Amy La Porte, CNN
Updated 4:10 PM ET, Mon December 19, 2016



(CNN)A former police sergeant, fired for flying a Confederate flag outside her Georgia home, is suing the police department.
And she's doing it with the help of a group with alleged ties to white supremacy.

Silvia Cotriss, a nearly 20-year veteran of the Roswell Police Department, was terminated over what the department called conduct unbecoming an officer: a confederate flag, raised above her front porch in the neighboring town of Woodstock.

But Cotriss' attorney, David Ates, says her dismissal was in direct violation of her constitutional right to free speech as a private citizen.
"She was displaying her pride in her Southern heritage and honoring her recently deceased husband," the lawsuit said. "The Confederate flag [is a] generally accepted symbol of Georgia heritage."

Along with her attorney, Cotriss is also represented by the Southern Legal Resource Center, a North Carolina nonprofit whose Facebook page touts "Confederate Southern Americans" as "America's most persecuted minority."
The group was co-founded by Kirk Lyons, a man the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a "white supremacist lawyer."
The SLC, which tracks hate groups, says on its website that Lyons serves what "has effectively become the legal arm of the neo-Confederate movement."

Lyons denied any association with hate groups, and told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that his job is to ensure Cotriss "gets a fair shake after being unfairly terminated."

Cotriss is suing the city of Roswell and the Roswell chief of police for either reinstatement of her former position or 10 years of pay, as well as other compensatory damages.

Her dismissal, in July, came at a time of heightened racial tensions between police and black communities across the country.

The case also hit a nerve a year after a shooting that left nine dead at a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina.
The convicted gunman, Dylann Roof, had "posed for photos with the US flag burning in one hand and the Confederate flag in the other," according to Assistant US Attorney Jay Richardson.
CNN article

In this case, she is going through the normal civil court for damages, not the workers compensation court. I don't know what the outcome of the case is, or whether the case has even come up for trial yet.

Maybe I'm confusing the law with what I think is right. I have never felt owned by an employer - not since I left the Army, anyway.