Fired for Obama Vote?
Well, I don’t think political affiliation is a protected class anyway.
DAYTON, Ohio (AP)—A southwest Ohio woman who says she was fired because she voted for President Barack Obama filed a lawsuit against her former employer.
Patricia Kunkle’s lawsuit accuses Dayton-based defense contractor Q-Mark Inc. and its president of telling employees that if Obama was re-elected, then his supporters would be the first to be fired, The Dayton Daily News (http://bit.ly/YxE10A) reported.
Brian Wildermuth, an attorney for the company president, said in a statement that Kunkle was laid off for economic reasons — “nothing more.”
“I am sure you and your readers are familiar with the ongoing uncertainties regarding defense spending, and thus the economic environment confronting defense contractors,” he said. “The allegation that Q-Mark discharged Ms. Kunkle because of her vote is simply false.”
I don’t know if this is legally a wrongful termination, but if I worked someplace where the brass were rabidly anti-Obama and I voted for him, I think I’d keep my political opinions to myself.
Perhaps you should be able to broadcast your politics in any workplace, but, there are times to choose the battles one wishes to fight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 0848 hrs
When an employee openly advocates for the destruction of the own company you work for…I find that to be cause to fire someone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 0912 hrs
Unfortunately political affiliation became a protected class in January of 2009.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1010 hrs
She won’t be the last one that losses her job thanks to Obama
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1114 hrs
“I don’t know if this is legally a wrongful termination, but if I worked someplace where the brass were rabidly anti-Obama and I voted for him, I think I’d keep my political opinions to myself.”
Sound advice. But here’s the catch from the full article:
“The suit also said Gentile engaged Q-Mark employees in conversations aimed at discovering employees’ political affiliations[...]”
If this is true, and if she did, in fact, keep her opinions to herself, and wasn’t “openly advocating” for anything, then this muddies the waters considerably. Ohio being an at-will employment state adds another layer of complications.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1506 hrs
If the SOB was grilling his employees to find out their affiliation I hope he gets nailed.
Kevin, there are few people who can make Rush Limbaugh seem tame…you are one of the lucky few.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1728 hrs
then this muddies the waters considerably
How, given that Ohio is at-will. Unless I’m mistaken that means she could be fired because her boss doesn’t like her hair-color. Her political views are NOT a protected status, as much as the communist jackholes in power want it to be for their followers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1729 hrs
“How, given that Ohio is at-will. Unless I’m mistaken that means she could be fired because her boss doesn’t like her hair-color. Her political views are NOT a protected status, as much as the communist jackholes in power want it to be for their followers.”
Yes, and I brought up Ohio being at-will in my very next sentence. That being the case, if her employer had put it in writing that hair color was the reason for the termination she could’ve saved herself a lot of trouble.
From the article:
”[...]this case, which pits at-will employment against Ohio Revised Code 3599, which guards against employers’ intimidation, coercion and retaliation involving elections.”
And here’s the relevant section of Code 3599.06 (which went into effect in 1953, TerryN):
“No employer, his officer or agent, shall [...] indirectly use any force or restraint or threaten to inflict any injury, harm, or loss; or in any other manner practice intimidation in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting for or against any person or question or issue submitted to the voters.”
I’m not saying the it’s a slam dunk either way. From the information available to us so far, though, it seems like the employee has a case worth pursuing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1752 hrs
Dave,
Very funny. I could make a comment that you make Fidel Castro look like Ronald Reagan, but given how on point that would be, it just would not be as hilarious as your comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1756 hrs
No matter what, if you work for someone and they fire you, it’s their prerogative.
You are either capable of holding a position or not. It’s up to you…
I every country that has laws protecting the contract between employers and employees, employees always lose when the employer bails out.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1927 hrs
“No matter what, if you work for someone and they fire you, it’s their prerogative.
You are either capable of holding a position or not. It’s up to you…”
If you can’t see the logical inconsistency between these two statements, I don’t know what to tell you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1936 hrs
Not quite right. Under at will employment you can fire a person for any reason or no reason at all unless it is an illegal basis such as discrimination on the basis of a protected classification. She may not return to work but the employer may end up paying damages for that action.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2013 at 1938 hrs
Major Booris - I did not intend to draw some logical conclusion. I made a statement of opinion based on reality.
If someone pays another to preform a task and they decide to stop that pay, for any reason, it’s their prerogative.
Your conflating logic with reason.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 0809 hrs
“If someone pays another to preform a task and they decide to stop that pay, for any reason, it’s their prerogative.”
In the most literal sense, this is true. However, would you agree that certain reasons for exercising that prerogative, for example, an employer demanding sexual favors as a condition of employment, can warrant legal action? Or are you going to go full-on Gilded Age mode and say, “Here are your rights in the workplace: Take it or leave it”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 1019 hrs
You know, Major Booris, if it weren’t for those pesky unions, we just wouldn’t have these problems with employees demanding to be treated as people. Why can’t we just go back to do the days when we allowed businessmen to own their means of production? I mean, our Founders were okay with it, and we treat those guys like the second coming of Christ.
Really, I suspect the lesson here - for employers and employees alike - is just don’t talk about politics at work. There’s no legitimate reason for an employee to be discussing it, and there’s no legitimate reason for an employer to be inquiring about it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 23, 2013 at 1238 hrs
Yeah not like anyone here had issues or shit themselves when they found out people were voting against Walker in the recall. Talk about hypocrisy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 1923 hrs
Major Booris - If an employer demands sexual favors he broke the law. Then the employee has recourse. Just spend an hour watching TV during the week for a laundry list of ambulance chasers.
I suppose I should say legally stop that pay to satisfy the naysayers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 2030 hrs
“If an employer demands sexual favors he broke the law. Then the employee has recourse.”
Exactly.
And, in this case, the employer may have broken the law of Ohio. The courts will need to review the relationship between the at-will employment law and the law preventing an employer from abusing their position regarding employees’ votes. All I’m trying to say is that this case can’t simply be boiled down to ‘political affiliation is not a protected status’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2013 at 2118 hrs
Really, I suspect the lesson here - for employers and employees alike - is just don’t talk about politics at work. There’s no legitimate reason for an employee to be discussing it, and there’s no legitimate reason for an employer to be inquiring about it.
Absolutely. Seems like common sense to me.
As far as Ohio law goes, I see Booris’ point, but I’m not sure it would apply to a retroactive action as occurred here. I could see it as a clear violation if the employer told the employee they would be terminated if they voted a certain way prior to the election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2013 at 1104 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 54
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 08:16 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).