• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Only if she can prove the firing was related to being a member of a protected class. Unless it was not at will employment but I’m not aware of any private sector jobs like that anymore.

    Edit: people keep telling me I’m wrong so that may be true.

    • Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, they gave a reason and that reason isn’t covered under their policy, so she should still be covered.

      If they let her go without a reason, then she would have to prove discrimination. But if they say “You violated our social media policy” and refuse to show how, and she can prove that nothing she did was on violation of the policy as written, then that is a clear case of unlawful termination.

    • GekkoState@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Lots of teachers are part of a union. There’s no mention of it in the article that I see, but union workers tend to be a little bit more protected than at will workers.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        In this case, she seems to have moved into healthcare in some way or another and may no longer have union support.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      As said below, they gave a reason. It has to be consistent with the actual policy and that policy has to be applied fairly and universally. If someone is making it up as they go, then they did it wrong.