A column in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer by Daniel Rubin reveals a disturbing case of attempted censorship by a public relations firm tied to the Foxwoods Casino.
The public relations firm in question, Tierney Communications, fired one of their vice presidents, Peggy Griffin, because she wrote a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer warning of the casino's potential effect on her neighborhood. She had already made the firm aware of her stance on the issue before they hired, and she did not mention her affiliation with Tierney. Nevertheless, they dumped her, putting a potentially damaging mark on her career.
Some might question her willingness to work with a firm that supported a cause she opposed. However, she made it clear she would not work on the Foxwoods account, and did not let her employment there make her censor her beliefs.
Tierney Communications must not be very good at public relations, as the move has already garnered them negative coverage in the Inquirer and a nasty letter to the editor.
Here is a link to Tierney's website so you can contact them about the decision. Make certain any letters or e-mails you send are polite and to the point.
Censorship
Truly a bad situation. Particularly if the facts are as you provide.
But, there is no 1st Amendment right in the private workplace. So, while unfortunate and ridiculous, it is not censorship.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Three Quibbles
Gaetano, you're the lawyer, not me. But...
1) It is censorship. But, while unfortunate and ridiculous, it is not illegal. Private censorship is often legal; government censorship is often not.
2) Some constitutional rights, like the freedom of association and assembly, or freedom of religion, are preserved in the private workplace. That's what the NLRB and EEOC are for. It's not like it's the Wild West and employers can fire you for whatever you say.
3) It's conceivable that either the employee or the employer violated the terms of the labor contract between them. In which case the termination could be justified or it might not be. But that would then be a different point of law.
You're right, and you're wrong.
You are right on 1--that is the point I was trying to make. Censorship
On 2 you are partly right. It isn't the Wild West. But it isn't as regulated as you would lead people to believe.
On 3, there is often no "labor contract" between professionals. Just the typical "at will" relationship.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I don't know the field
I don't know the field terribly well, but my thought is that someone working at a public relations firm probably would have a contract, with nondisclosure clauses, maybe a noncompete clause, and that it very may well have included a provision that he/she not publically defame or speak against clients of the company. And if this employee voiced her opposition and made arrangements not to work on the casino account, she could have negotiated a limited exemption to that policy. Her firm would have been under no obligation to accept that, but it's clear that whatever arrangements she thought she had made weren't sufficient.
If she had a very good term
If she had a very good term contract, then maybe. But, you are basically giving employees more rights than they have 99.9 percent of the time when they are not part of a union.
So, yeah, the NRLB exists- but not only is it weak, it deals with labor contracts. And, the EEOC exists, but it only does so for specific protected classes of people in the Civil Rights Act. You do not have freedom of expression at your workplace. In PA you can, with a very small number of protections, be fired for any reason whatsoever.
I doubt the Tierney group
I doubt the Tierney group would have accepted such a contract. My bet is that if anything, she violated the terms of her contract by speaking out against a client of the firm. So not only was her speech not protected, it may have been prohibited and a basis for immediate dismissal.
Again, you are making this
Again, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
The vast majority of professionals are at-will employees. They can be fired for almost any reason whatsoever, except as part of a small number of protected classes. Whether she had a contract or not that prohibited that is largely irrelevant, except in an attempt to collect unemployment.
Doesn't it seem odd . . .
We are getting one side of the story. But, doesn't it seem odd that she (1) went to work for this company; (2) the company hired her with full understanding of her work against one of its biggest account; and (3) that after she started work, she was let go?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Actually, as the article I
Actually, as the article I linked to made clear, they had told her she could continue expressing her opinions on this matter just so long as she did not identify herself as a Tierney employee.
The Expatriate
Yeah, but, the problem is
Yeah, but, the problem is employment law is so weighted to employers that it probably does not matter. Employers can fire an employee for just about any reason whatsoever.
Yet another reason to make 2008
the year we elect a Democratic president and a clear majority activist Democratic Congress.
If employment law is not doing what we want it to do, we should change it.
We need legislators who will protect workers' rights and speech and a president who won't veto such changes.
On a positive note, I think any of the top three might be okay if she or he were pushed in that direction, though I have some qualms about some of Hillary's old friends.
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality
John Kennedy creatively paraphrasing Dante
There Is A Very Limited Public Policy Exemption For At-Will Empl
There is a very limited public policy exemption for at will employees. It is heavily fact-specific and heavily dependent on the opinion of whatever court is making the decision. For instance, firing someone because he or she would not commit a crime or because of a refusal to engage in sex will often be found to be actionable; the general remedy is monetary damages.
It is rare, however, for this public policy exemption to the at-will employee doctrine to include taking a position on public issues, especially an opinion against the opinion a public relations firm is hired to promote.
PA Public Policy
The Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1 Section 7 provides:
"The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
If I was still a sole practitioner (sadly my quixotic quest for a robe ended that) I would gladly represent her on a contingency fee basis.