I think this is an interesting topic for discussion and worth debating. So, thanks for this. I was thinking about what you said this morning while making breakfast. It's a good question. Should employers have the right to fire employees for making comments outside of work that offends others?
My response is, does there have to be a law about this one way or the other? The government must observe the 1A and wide range of speech that others might feel is offensive is protected from the government. At this time, protection of speech does not extend into private businesses. If an employee makes a statement that the business owner deems to be harmful to their business, they can take action to protect it? The employee may say they are gay and their employment is protected because a person can't be fired just because they are gay. A bible thumping owner like the one at Chick fil A can't fire a person because of that. Supreme Court ruled on this in 2020
In a landmark ruling for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court said workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.
www.cnbc.com
But, can they be fired for the things they say outside of work?
From this article,
If you're unsure whether your company can fire you for social or political activism, experts said there are a few instances where you're protected.
www.businessinsider.com
the answer is, "It Depends". States have their own laws, some workers have extra protections in those states. Also, government employees are protected under the 1A. Finally, employers have to be clear about their policies and treat everybody the same, consistent with those policies. In most cases, if a person is following the law, is acting on their own and on their time and does not mention their company when speaking, they should be fine but this is a grey area. Employers don't have the right to fire a person simply because they are politically active. However if there is a company policy in place and the employee violated that, then they can be fired.
This how it's described in the article I linked to (above)
"Private employers still have the ability and pretty wide latitude to regulate an employee's off-duty conduct to the extent it damages the company's reputation or any of its internal policies or values," Holt said.
Say a worker is off duty but found to be saying things that violate a company's anti-discrimination or harassment policies — the employer can and should step in, he explained. Not only does the employee's behavior make a company look bad, it could also put an organization at risk legally if they knowingly employ someone engaging in discriminatory behaviors.
So, it's not a clear and bright line that we can just point at and say, she crossed it or what they did was OK. However, according to Spyglass, Barrera crossed a line they drew in their policy on conditions of employment. They say her actions violated policies regarding statements she made that they claim were anti-Semitic and "hate speech". People may agree or disagree but that's what they said.
So, now this drifts into how companies protect their brand value and what kind of behavior people are willing to boycott by spending their money elsewhere. Is this an appropriate way to regulate behavior?