Rosanne gets the ax!

[Rigby5]

You are insane.

Firing Roseanne is not only racist, but illegal discrimination.

https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html

{...
California's laws against employer political activity retaliation, Labor Code 1101 and 1102 LC, prohibit employers from

setting any policy that prevents employees from engaging in political activity or running for political office, or that tries to control or direct employees' political activity,
attempting to control employees' political activities by threatening to engage in political activity retaliation, or
retaliating in any way (including through wrongful termination) against an employee for his/her political beliefs or activities.1
Examples of employees who might have a case against their employer for political activity workplace retaliation include:

A woman who is fired after she writes an op-ed for her local paper criticizing a candidate for office to whom her employer has been a large donor; and
A man who is demoted at work by his pro-choice boss after he joins the board of a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion.
...
But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following:

Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office;
Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or
Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6
It follows from these laws against employer political suppression or coercion that employers may not fire or retaliate against employees for their political activity or beliefs.
...}

 

[domer76]

Firing Roseanne is not only racist, but illegal discrimination.

I spend quite a bit of time trying to correct the willful ignorance of the cretins on this forum. I certainly don't need another cretin like you to add to that list.

 

[domer76]

That is the whole point of all the laws against wrongful termination over political expression.
The employer normally has absolutely NO right to terminate anyone over their expression of political freedom.
The employer has no right to determine harm or potential harm.
Only the courts can do that.
And since the show Roseanne created has the highest of all sitcom ratings, clearly ABC has no case.
They did not lose any income.
Roseanne generates income because she is playing a racist, so it is impossible for her to then lose income for the show by publishing a tweet that may sound racist so some.

lol

You're not only ignorant of the law, you are gullible as well, buying into her bullshit "explanation".

Get the fuck off this forum, moron, and raise the collective IQ.

 

[domer76]

Firing Roseanne is not only racist, but illegal discrimination.

https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html

{...
California's laws against employer political activity retaliation, Labor Code 1101 and 1102 LC, prohibit employers from

setting any policy that prevents employees from engaging in political activity or running for political office, or that tries to control or direct employees' political activity,
attempting to control employees' political activities by threatening to engage in political activity retaliation, or
retaliating in any way (including through wrongful termination) against an employee for his/her political beliefs or activities.1
Examples of employees who might have a case against their employer for political activity workplace retaliation include:

A woman who is fired after she writes an op-ed for her local paper criticizing a candidate for office to whom her employer has been a large donor; and
A man who is demoted at work by his pro-choice boss after he joins the board of a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion.
...
But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following:

Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office;
Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or
Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6
It follows from these laws against employer political suppression or coercion that employers may not fire or retaliate against employees for their political activity or beliefs.
...}

 

[Leonthecat]

Firing Roseanne is not only racist, but illegal discrimination.

https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html

{...
California's laws against employer political activity retaliation, Labor Code 1101 and 1102 LC, prohibit employers from

setting any policy that prevents employees from engaging in political activity or running for political office, or that tries to control or direct employees' political activity,
attempting to control employees' political activities by threatening to engage in political activity retaliation, or
retaliating in any way (including through wrongful termination) against an employee for his/her political beliefs or activities.1
Examples of employees who might have a case against their employer for political activity workplace retaliation include:

A woman who is fired after she writes an op-ed for her local paper criticizing a candidate for office to whom her employer has been a large donor; and
A man who is demoted at work by his pro-choice boss after he joins the board of a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion.
...
But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following:

Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office;
Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or
Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6
It follows from these laws against employer political suppression or coercion that employers may not fire or retaliate against employees for their political activity or beliefs.
...}

She wasn't fired for an op-ed.
She was fired for a public racist rant and it wasn't her first time.
Disney can not afford to be associated with an overt racist.
She is finished.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There is NO Muslim Brotherhood in Iran.

there are no homosexuals there either, if I remember correctly.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nonsense.
I just quoted you a summary from the state of NY saying it is illegal for employers to curtail speech.
It is true in ALL states.
Tell me any state, and I will show you the law makes it illegal for employers to coerce the suppression of political expression outside of work.

And you should know better.
If you allowed employers to do that, since almost everyone is an employee, it would destroy the whole democratic republic.

Michigan please.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That is foolish.
The first amendment is not at all the source of freedom of political expression.
It is state constitutions and state law that do that.

in New York......probably in California......not likely anywhere else.......

 

[Rigby5]

Michigan please.....

{... In Michigan, the laws prohibit direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote. It also prohibits tracking of political activity. ...}
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for-your_b_9154066.html

Here is from the MI state constitution:
{...
Freedom of speech and press.

7. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
...}
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/miconstitution1835.htm

Essentially tweets allow each person to be their own press.
And the freedom to tweet what ever you want as long as it is not slander or libel, is absolute.
An employer terminating over political expression is attempting illegal censorship of the press.

 

[Rigby5]

I spend quite a bit of time trying to correct the willful ignorance of the cretins on this forum. I certainly don't need another cretin like you to add to that list.

Then try actually looking at the law.
It says very clearly that no one can infringe upon political expression outside of the work place, and that attempts to do so by contract or work place regulation is totally illegal.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

{... In Michigan, the laws prohibit direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote. It also prohibits tracking of political activity. ...}
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for-your_b_9154066.html

Here is from the MI state constitution:
{...
Freedom of speech and press.

7. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
...}
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/miconstitution1835.htm

Essentially tweets allow each person to be their own press.
And the freedom to tweet what ever you want as long as it is not slander or libel, is absolute.
An employer terminating over political expression is attempting illegal censorship of the press.

Roseanne Barr was undoubtedly working under contract. Neither you nor I know what is in that contract.

 

[Rigby5]

in New York......probably in California......not likely anywhere else.......

No, all the states pretty much agreed upon the same rights in the federal Bill of Rights.
And it does not even matter if they did or not, because after the 14th amendment, the SCOTUS started "incorporating" rights from the Bill of Rights as also applying to everyone everywhere, not just as restriction on federal infringement.
The last was the 2nd amendment with Emerson and in 2008, DC vs Heller.
So now there are federal laws preventing employers infringing upon free political expression by employees, especially off hours.

{...
The National Labor Relations Act, which does cover private employers, may not apply directly to political speech per se in the private workplace. However, it does give non-supervisory employees a limited right to engage in free speech and other protected concerted activities for their “mutual aid and protection.”

For example, under this federal labor law, employees may wear union buttons or insignia in the workplace, absent special circumstances. They may engage in solicitations for political causes on their employer’s property so long as neither the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited are not engaging in such activities during working time.

Similarly, employees may engage in distribution of political materials on the employer’s property so long as the distribution does not occur in working areas. Moreover, employers who allow candidates to come on to their property and campaign, may undermine their rights to maintain and enforce otherwise lawful limits on employee solicitation or distribution.

Court rulings and opinions of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also make it clear that employees can engage in political campaign activities that may be contrary to the interests or positions of their employer. For example, discharging employees for campaigning against immigration reform or for repeal of a state’s right to work law would be unlawful.

The NLRB has also recently been very active in applying the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection to social media such as Facebook and Twitter — even when the employees are not working. The NLRB has published three extensive reports in the past year expounding on these rights. Thus, employers should be careful to appreciate and not violate rights of employees who exercise their emerging rights to use such forms of social media.
...}

https://www.tlnt.com/political-speech-in-the-workplace-employers-beware/

 

[Rigby5]

Roseanne Barr was undoubtedly working under contract. Neither you nor I know what is in that contract.

Does not matter what is in the contract, because I already posted CA and NY law that prohibits contract clauses infringing on free political expression.

If an employee where to put a clause in a contract that violated any inherent right, such as discrimination over age, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or political expression, then the employer has committed an additional crime.
The fact employees can be coerced into signing such contract, does not make it any more legal or enforceable.

Roseanne is already a professional comedian who literally has to say outrageous thing continually, and since she already ran for president as a socialist, there is no way anyone could expect her to suppress her political expression. ABC knew that before the show even got started. They can't legally balk now.

 

[Controlled Opposition]

Does not matter what is in the contract, because I already posted CA and NY law that prohibits contract clauses infringing on free political expression.

If an employee where to put a clause in a contract that violated any inherent right, such as discrimination over age, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or political expression, then the employer has committed an additional crime.
The fact employees can be coerced into signing such contract, does not make it any more legal or enforceable.

Roseanne is already a professional comedian who literally has to say outrageous thing continually, and since she already ran for president as a socialist, there is no way anyone could expect her to suppress her political expression. ABC knew that before the show even got started. They can't legally balk now.

Yes, what is in the contract matters. You've never heard of morality clauses?

 

[kudzu]

Then try actually looking at the law.
It says very clearly that no one can infringe upon political expression outside of the work place, and that attempts to do so by contract or work place regulation is totally illegal.

The government didn't interfere in Roseanne's free speech. Her employer did and that is legal.

 

[kudzu]

Does not matter what is in the contract, because I already posted CA and NY law that prohibits contract clauses infringing on free political expression.

If an employee where to put a clause in a contract that violated any inherent right, such as discrimination over age, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or political expression, then the employer has committed an additional crime.
The fact employees can be coerced into signing such contract, does not make it any more legal or enforceable.

Roseanne is already a professional comedian who literally has to say outrageous thing continually, and since she already ran for president as a socialist, there is no way anyone could expect her to suppress her political expression. ABC knew that before the show even got started. They can't legally balk now.

Preachers and Fire chiefs have been fired for Facebook rants.. You are simply wrong.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No, all the states pretty much agreed upon the same rights in the federal Bill of Rights.
And it does not even matter if they did or not, because after the 14th amendment, the SCOTUS started "incorporating" rights from the Bill of Rights as also applying to everyone everywhere, not just as restriction on federal infringement.
The last was the 2nd amendment with Emerson and in 2008, DC vs Heller.
So now there are federal laws preventing employers infringing upon free political expression by employees, especially off hours.

{...
The National Labor Relations Act, which does cover private employers, may not apply directly to political speech per se in the private workplace. However, it does give non-supervisory employees a limited right to engage in free speech and other protected concerted activities for their “mutual aid and protection.”

For example, under this federal labor law, employees may wear union buttons or insignia in the workplace, absent special circumstances. They may engage in solicitations for political causes on their employer’s property so long as neither the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited are not engaging in such activities during working time.

Similarly, employees may engage in distribution of political materials on the employer’s property so long as the distribution does not occur in working areas. Moreover, employers who allow candidates to come on to their property and campaign, may undermine their rights to maintain and enforce otherwise lawful limits on employee solicitation or distribution.

Court rulings and opinions of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also make it clear that employees can engage in political campaign activities that may be contrary to the interests or positions of their employer. For example, discharging employees for campaigning against immigration reform or for repeal of a state’s right to work law would be unlawful.

The NLRB has also recently been very active in applying the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection to social media such as Facebook and Twitter — even when the employees are not working. The NLRB has published three extensive reports in the past year expounding on these rights. Thus, employers should be careful to appreciate and not violate rights of employees who exercise their emerging rights to use such forms of social media.
...}

https://www.tlnt.com/political-speech-in-the-workplace-employers-beware/

you were wrong about Michigan, I expect you are wrong about many others......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

{... In Michigan, the laws prohibit direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote. It also prohibits tracking of political activity. ...}
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for-your_b_9154066.html

Here is from the MI state constitution:
{...
Freedom of speech and press.

7. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
...}
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/miconstitution1835.htm

Essentially tweets allow each person to be their own press.
And the freedom to tweet what ever you want as long as it is not slander or libel, is absolute.
An employer terminating over political expression is attempting illegal censorship of the press.

tracking your link to the Michigan law an employer is NOT barred from firing an employee if he dislikes his employee's political orientation......

 

[domer76]

Then try actually looking at the law.
It says very clearly that no one can infringe upon political expression outside of the work place, and that attempts to do so by contract or work place regulation is totally illegal.

lol

Gullible fuck, I see you're still buying into that bullshit.

I have some Rolex watches you might be interested in.

Moron

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, what is in the contract matters. You've never heard of morality clauses?

Morality clauses first of all are pretty much obsolete now and ruled to be in violation of individual rights.
When they are allowed, the employer has to show real damages, not just their desire to impress their values onto the employees.

And what I quoted from law showed that any contract clause that infringes upon inherent individual rights and discriminates based on things like race, religion, age, sexual orientation, political expression or affiliation, etc., is entirely and completely illegal.