There are protected groups, but that's under employment law not the first amendment which is quoted far more broadly than it applies.

Without a contract, and subject to laws regarding discrimination against people based on the group they are in, you can fire someone for any reason you want -- and they can quit for any reason they want.

For most employees it really shouldn't matter what they do on their time off, but if they are readily identifiable as being associated with your business, they can do damage by public postings that conflict with your business mission -- and facebook is a public post.

And of course, it's a bad idea to post drunken pictures of you at a party on Sunday and then call in with the flu on Monday.

Actually, the First Amendment is the basis for the current workplace discrimination laws we have, which strictly forbid discrimination in hiring or firing based on religion, sex, race, etc...

But I'll repeat the argument I presented to WilliamShipley with you: Would you then make corporations into religions - with the authority to only hire those who strictly identify with the corporation's moral views? Do you then force companies to take sides in each and every moral issue at risk of their workforce?

(As a tertiary argument, I would also point out that the relationship between an employer and employee is significantly different than the relationship between an company and a client. These are different issues entirely.)

Let's say that your contention is true, and that an employer can fire an employee simply because the employee disagrees with the company on a moral issue. What you have done is created employers who are now religions: if one does not tow the company line on moral decisions, such can be "excommunicated". That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. Think of how much an employment decision affects a person's life and now you would give the employer control over the moral decisions of that person? I don't think that the employee grants the employer any such right, nor does the employer assert any such privilege during the hiring decision.

The exception comes (as previously mentioned) with employees in an agent position - those who act on behalf of and represent the company. When in their official capacities, such must act on behalf of their employers with all good faith or justifiably risk termination (Association). But when not in one's official capacity, they do not necessarily represent the company and therefore Freedom of Speech should be the standard.

I can't hold to the notion that a company has coercive right of conscience over its employees.

The first amendment limits what the government can do. It does not limit individuals or corporations. You cannot be arrested for speech but you certainly can be fired.

With all due respect, I disagree. The First Amendment applies only to the Government as far as free speech. If I'm an employer and find out through any public posting that they are a white supremacist, or promote ISIS, they're gone. Further, IMO shunning, refusing to associate, or refusing service in your business to someone who holds repugnant or immoral ideas is a proper exercise of Freedom of Association, which implies the right not to associate. Personally, if I owned a service business I would not refuse service to a gay person, the current example being not baking a cake for a gay wedding. But I would support the right of people of other beliefs to do so, although I may then decide not to patronize that bakery myself. It's not the Government's business.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to two separate things: both Free Speech and Association. We must tread a fine line between these two when dealing with employer-employee relations.

The real question is this: is the employee is acting as an agent of the company or not? If they are, the company has not only a right, but a responsibility to manage their brand - which includes firing employees who disparage the brand and who act as agents. That being said, there is a difference between disagreeing with a particular decision taken by a company and disparaging it. Freedom of expression should cover simple disagreement in all cases. The crux of the matter should be all about whether or not the comments were disparaging and painted the company in a bad light. But as soon as one gets into being able to control the free speech of one's employees, we risk the vary coercion we strictly forbid in government now being applied in the workplace.

The employer/employee relationship is voluntary on each side. The employer has as much right to fire the employee, at will, for any reason. Just (as is "acceptable" in today's culture), an employee may quit at any time.

Having said that, the legal is not the same as the moral. The employer may be morally wrong for terminating the employee, depending on the reasons.

An employer should Be as free as an employee to terminate an employment relationship. Posts on Facebook are a window into the soul. I think one is free to post anything, and the employer should be free to use theinfo

Often when someone gets or is given something for free especially an athletic gift(scholarship) it is not valued.

Unless you're afraid of competition of negative repercussions of virtually Anything They Might Do in their 'personal time' that could 'harm you or your business.'
Americans, both individuals and businesses, for decades now, have been seeking Perfect Safety From Everything, and this is but another page in the handbook.

Michael,.. the same way an employer or prospective employer might research YOU for letters to the editor, clubs or groups you belong to or books you've written... all in the Public Domain... which reflect on You as to whether You're the Kind Of Person They'd Want Working For Them.
Or interviews on TV you've done, or blogs you've published or your posts on Linked-In, FaceBook, HuffPost or any other media open to the public.
Welcome to the wider range of "media" of this century!
Sue Al Gore for having invented the Internet, too?
:) Gotta be somebody we can blame, right?

In my mind, it's similar to "arguments" gun-controllers want to make against Automatic Weapons... If you were to play that record backward in time, the evolution of "Weapons" from Fists to Throwing Rocks to Slingshots to Catapults to Spears to Bow-and-Arrow to Blow Darts to pistols to muskets to revolvers to machine guns to Gatling Guns, etc...
The same "it's immoral to be able to do that much MORE destruction and killing with That New Weapon!" mentality gets laughed into the dust by Thinking People.
It's called Technological Progress and it can show up anywhere, from guns to Mass Media.
Hey, who Needed a Telephone when the Telegraph was perfectly Good Enough?
Or Radio?
Or Television?
Or Smart Phones?

Sorry... got carried away, again, as usual.
Cliff Notes available in the Book Store soon... :)

Shit... I've got some friends, relatives and ex-girlfriends who'd fire me for MY beliefs if they could... :))))))))))

Fine, but if you want that to happen, you'll probably need to pursue a test case up through the Supreme Court to see it happen.

Such is Life in The US Today.
Sad.

Unless there's some stupid clause in their contract designed to protect or shield the Employer from something an employee might say or not say.

When I took the retirement buyout offer from my last employer, it included a clause that I promised to "never publicly say anything negative about the Company after that."

I'd just LOVE the ACLU or some similar organization's lawyers to sink their fangs into That Level of Bullshit.

:)

I completely agree, and unless those details are surfaced, there's NO way to determine if the 'firing' was 'justified' or not. It all may depend on the legalese in the contract.
I hope someone digs down deep enough to uncover those kinds of vital facts.
Without them, we're all just flapping our gums about the possible 'unfairness of it all' and that's a waste of oxygen.

Regardless of contract, NO employer deserves a say in what employees do off the job. Only offenses committed on shift or truancy deserve any punishment whatsoever. People's lives and doings off work must be ungoverned at all costs, including online postings.

Don't feel too sorry for her. She was part of the problem for years; this time she's the victim, but did the same to others before her. What is amazing is that every socialist / tyrannical order is full of aspiring lower ranks that will do anything to advance and take the place of their master, only to suffer the same fate as their now previous master. And the cycle just keeps repeating...

Can't say I disagree with you. Nevertheless, facebook has become a liability to some, a tool to others and sadly, a way of life for too many. Somewhere, I read a best wishes saying "May your life be as great as you claim it to be on facebook".

Many people that work for the US Government do not have FB accounts because they can get into trouble for personal opinions. I have also seen church employees fired for FB postings.

In a free society they should be able to say what they want within limits. If it is honest, but does no harm, then yes free speech needs to be protected. If it is purely political, and truthful, then yes protected. If purely political but deliberately false, then no protection.

Let's say I work in the Postal Service and I'm at a bar, in uniform, obviously drunk doing something obviously... let's say immoral when a picture is taken and posted on facebook. The picture goes viral. There's your nexus to the Postal Service. I get fired. Due to employee rights in the Postal Service, I can appeal the firing but now it's subject to a third party making a final determination.

Now imagine the same scenario but with a company in which employees don't have appeal rights, like a private company. I'm still fired except there is no third party to appeal. You're fired for the posting on facebook which reflected poorly on the company.

Facebook is also being looked at by prospective employers. I always tell young people to keep their personal lives out of facebook. Something you post on facebook will come and bite you when you least expect it, at the worst time, in the worst way.