Four town employees in Hooksett, N.H., were fired in part for "discussing rumors of an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee," according to this report from ABC News.
Ah, the employment law questions that this raises, some of which come up in this week's Practice Focus (subscription required) on employment law. For example:
• Do the government workers have any First Amendment protection for this speech? Some courts have found that allegations of discrimination by a government manager are matters of public concern. But it's not clear if such gossip would rise to this level, and Professor Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi writes that the Supreme Court ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) has made it "nearly impossible" for government employees to speak out without fear of retaliation.
• These were town employees presumably not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, but private companies must be wary of punishing "concerted activity" -- even when no unions are present. (Richard Vernon and Anne Fox of Lerch, Early & Brewer discuss this week how this can cause problems for confidentiality policies.) Could such employee discussions about an improper relationship between a manager and a co-worker involve general working conditions, not simply a private gripe, and thus qualify for protection as concerted activity?
• Or might similar employee discussions qualify as protected activity under Title VII? A manager's preferential treatment of a paramour arguably isn't the sort of sexual discrimination that Title VII prohibits (though the question has been disputed). But to qualify for protection, the employee opposition to the perceived unlawful action generally need not be correct about the underlying law (merely reasonable and in good faith).
All this might make a great law-school exam question. With one ironic factual twist: The town may have fired the women partly to stop talk about the allegedly improper relationship (rumors that the town residents apparently now agree were unfounded). But now, the situation is being discussed nationally, if not globally.
Comments