Discussing Politics at Work This Election Day? Some Considerations for Employers
“Employers should expect everyone to maintain civility in the workplace—if someone doesn't want to talk about politics, they shouldn't be pressured or forced to hear it,” one management-side lawyer says.
November 06, 2018 at 01:39 PM
7 minute read
The divisive run-up to the midterm elections has proven ripe for workplace discussions about politics, exposing employers to anti-discrimination and hostile workplace issues and forcing them to grapple with the scope of protections for speech and social media use.
Private employers largely have the power to restrict political-related activity during work time, but keeping politics completely out of the office—for instance, group discussions on email or at the water cooler—may prove difficult to enforce and monitor. Companies must balance among speech protections, minimizing hostile work environments and running afoul of certain state provisions, management lawyers say.
“You might overhear at the water cooler workers loudly debating about candidates. You want them to get back to work, but is it a good idea to restrict these conversations?” said Meryl Gutterman, counsel with ADP Small Business Services, during a recent webinar that spotlighted managing political talk in the workplace. “It may not be in your best interest to stifle. It also may be unlawful to tell certain employees that certain conversations can't be held in the workplace.”
This election season is particularly ripe for overlap between political issues and discrimination, said David Barron, a Cozen O'Connor member in Houston.
“From the #MeToo movement and the [Brett] Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to immigration topics and racial issues, there is a fear that someone could easily be offended during these workplace discussions,” Barron said in an interview. “A lot of lawyers try to manage that in the workplace.”
Hard-line policies restricting political discussions are rare, but during election season, many employers issue reminders to be civil and reinforce harassment policies and encourage workers to steer from controversial topics.
➤➤ 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.
Speech outside the workplace and on company electronic devices further muddy the waters for employers, but views unrelated to workplace conditions don't carry wide protections.
In a recent case, a marketing specialist in Virginia last year was fired after she flipped off President Donald Trump's motorcade during a weekend bike ride. A photo of the worker's middle-finger gesture went viral, and the company said the employee violated social media policies. The worker's lawsuit challenging her punishment failed.
A CareerBuilder study from 2012 found that a third of workers said they discuss politics at work, and of that number 23 percent said the conversation turned heated. Employment attorneys say companies should create policies to address these inevitable discussions. Human relations experts and attorneys offered insight into other trouble spots for employers looking to manage political talk and activity in the office.
|Beware of discrimination and harassment.
Conversations quickly can become charged during a political discussion. Heated exchanges for or against Trump's immigration policies might alienate some workers and lead them to file complaints if they feel they are being singled out. Employers must be careful to keep the conversations from violating discrimination rules, management-side attorneys say.
“Employers should expect everyone to maintain civility in the workplace—if someone doesn't want to talk about politics, they shouldn't be pressured or forced to hear it,” said Edward Harold, regional managing partner for Fisher & Phillips in New Orleans.
Kristin LaRosa, senior counsel at ADP Small Business Services, said companies should draft nondiscrimination policies that communicate and define what is acceptable and what is not.
Chatter by coworkers or management that could be deemed offensive to a protected class—based on gender, national origin, religion or race—is problematic and could create a hostile work environment. Gutterman said employers should be mindful about whether certain employees think they are being bullied.
Cozen O'Connor's Barron said he's seen “heated discussions” on social media in recent months, following the Kavanaugh hearings in which a high school classmate accused the now Supreme Court justice of sexual assault. “There are personal issues for people,” he said. “It's easy for people to have strong opinions and then offend someone who is a victim of something in the past.” Kavanaugh denied the allegations.
|Political speech is sometimes tied to protections concerning workplace conditions.
There are no broad federal protections for political discussions in the office, said Harold of Fisher Phillips. Still, a company might not have incentive—or even the resources—to stop employees from gabbing about politics and elections. “I don't know if employers want to involve themselves in the coffee-room conversation,” Harold said.
State and local laws pose some management considerations for the scope of what conversations and activity might be allowed. Some states have specific laws that say employers cannot prevent employees from participating in political activity.
New Jersey has a law that says employers can't threaten or punish employees based on their voting activities. In Washington state, employers can't discriminate against employees for supporting—or not supporting—any candidate, ballot proposition, political party or political committee.
The National Labor Relations Act also provides some protections for speech that is connected to workplace conditions. An employee who speaks out in favor of a candidate who supports minimum wage, for instance, or paid leave laws, might find some protections if an employer tried to reprimand the worker or otherwise try to curtail such speech.
LaRosa said an employee's rights could also be triggered if he or she attends a rally intended to improve workplace conditions. It can be tricky to police these actions. “Imposing limitations might not always be practical,” LaRosa said.
|Social media use can blur lines.
Social media accounts and the use of a company's electronic communication systems are the new frontiers of speech issues. An employee who posts political commentary on Facebook that is tied to workplace conditions might find some protections.
Then there is the issue over whether the employee is posting on work hours. “You have the right to control employees during work time,” Gutterman said.
The Trump-era National Labor Relations Board is currently looking at how much nonwork communication on company email can be protected. The Obama-era board permitted workers to use corporate email systems for union-related activity when they were not on the clock.
Gutterman said communications policies can help employers control how workers are utilizing equipment during work time.
Barron said that social media is a “gray area of the law,” but the NLRA does not extend to all personal opinions and political beliefs. “Social media can still hurt you in the workplace if it's offensive or an embarrassment to the employer,” he said.
Read more:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Law Firm Leasing Up Nearly 30% Through Q3, With a Growing Number of Firms Staying in Place
- 2SEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
- 3Musk Avoids Sanctions for Skipping SEC Testimony for Rocket Launch
- 4On Advice of DOJ Office, Special Counsel Moves to End Trump Prosecution
- 5Stars and Gripes: Merging Firms Need a ‘Superstar Culture’ for US Success
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