Company Defends Firing Employee Who Flipped Off Trump's Motorcade
"Akima is not a governmental entity—it is a private company," the company's lawyers at Virginia-based IslerDare wrote in court papers asking a judge to dismiss the claims. "Therefore, Akima's termination of plaintiff's employment cannot possibly violate free speech clauses in the U.S. or Virginia Constitution."
June 25, 2018 at 10:01 AM
4 minute read
The Virginia-based company that fired an employee who was captured in a viral photo flipping her middle finger at President Donald Trump's motorcade is rebuffing her claims in a lawsuit that says she was unlawfully terminated.
Akima LLC, a federal government contractor, fired Juli Briskman in October 2017, only days after she was photographed giving a middle finger to the Trump motorcade as it passed by her on a Saturday cycling outing. A journalist traveling with the motorcade shot the image, and the photo quickly rocketed across the web and national television. Briskman posted the photo on her Twitter and Facebook pages.
Akima claimed Briskman's gesture violated the company's social media policy. Briskman, formerly a marketing analyst at Akima in charge of social media, sued the company in Virginia state court in April. Her complaint, filed by the Geller Law Group and Protect Democracy, said Akima fired her because it feared any U.S. government retaliation would cost the company lost contracts.
Briskman's fleeting moment of protest along a Virginia roadway tees up legal questions over the scope of protections for employee speech. A hearing is scheduled for June 29 in Fairfax circuit court.
Edward Lee Isler of the Virginia firm IslerDare, representing Akima, declined to comment.
“Akima is not a governmental entity—it is a private company,” the company's lawyers wrote in court papers asking a judge to dismiss Briskman's claims. “Therefore, Akima's termination of plaintiff's employment cannot possibly violate free speech clauses in the U.S. or Virginia Constitution.”
The Virginia Supreme Court has never identified the U.S. or Virginia constitutions as a basis for a wrongful-discharge claim, Akima's lawyers said in a court filing Friday. They further argue there is no Virginia statute supporting Briskman's wrongful termination claim. Briskman, according to Akima, has not alleged a violation of public policy that was expressly articulated in state statutes.
Briskman's lawyers contend she was forced to resign for her off-duty and “peaceful” middle-finger protest not for any violation of company policy but instead out of Akima's fear the U.S. government could retaliate against the company. Akima and affiliated companies hold multimillion-dollar contracts for defense, cyber and health work, among other areas.
“The legal question here is just the same as it would be if Ms. Briskman had been photographed attending the Women's March with a funny sign or taking a knee with military veterans as the president's motorcade passed by: Can a Virginia employer terminate an employee because the employer is afraid that the government might unconstitutionally retaliate against the employer?” Briskman's lawyers wrote in court papers.
Lawyers for Briskman, including Maria Simon and Rebecca Geller, both of the Geller Law Group, are urging the Virginia court to apply a public-policy exception to Virginia's at-will employment doctrine.
That exception “serves as a safeguard to ensure that the at-will employment doctrine is not used to undermine core Virginia public policies,” Briskman's attorneys said in a court filing. “Both federal and state constitutions give government contractors the right to engage in off-duty political speech without the fear of retaliation.”
Briskman's lawyers acknowledge employees do not have a constitutional right not to be fired by an employer for engaging in protected speech. But, they argue, “an employee does have a constitutional right not to be fired by an employer because of unlawful government retaliation for constitutionally protected speech.”
Read more:
Trump Wants NFL Players Fired. It's Not That Simple
|➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250