David Harmon: I’m David Harmon
Mariya Gonor: And I’m Mariya Gonor.
David Harmon: And we are the Employment Strategists.
Mariya Gonor: A MAGA hat at a team meeting, a Bernie 2024 pin on a blazer, a slack channel that suddenly turns into debate over political policy. It is 2025 and politics is everywhere, including at work. But can your employer fire you for political beliefs? Can you be disciplined for joining a protest or for posting your opinions online?
David Harmon: So today on the Employment Strategists, we’re unpacking what happens when political speech meets workplace rules. And where the law draws the line between free expression and employer control.
Mariya Gonor: So let’s start with a couple of real-world examples. ’cause right now a lot of these types of things happening throughout.
David Harmon: So, one thing that occurred was at Microsoft earlier this year, dozens of employees staged the sit-in at the company’s Redmond campus to protest the company’s contract work with the Israeli government. Some employees live streamed the protest and refuse to leave after repeated instructions. Microsoft, what they ultimately did was they fired several participants for violating workplace conduct and trespassing policies, trespassing policies. The company said it supports lawful expression, but that employees do not have the right to disrupt operations or ignore lawful directives.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah, I mean that case shows balance, right? Employees wanted their activism heard, but the company drew a line around disruption and property use, perfectly lawful in private sector contact. Another example is what’s happening with the social media posts and the controversies around the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In fact there was a case right here in New Jersey where a nurse was initially fired after expressing the dissent to a doctor who was apparently allegedly cheering when he heard about the assassination, she was initially fired, but after she filed the lawsuit, the company reversed course and terminated the physician while reinstating her to her position. In addition, several employees across media and tech companies were terminated after posting mocking or celebratory comments online, not in the workplace, but actually on their private social media outlets.
David Harmon: So those cases highlight how political expression, even off the clock, can still have workplace consequences if it undermines an employer’s reputation, violates civility, laws, or creates a hostile environment.
Mariya Gonor: So what do these stories have in common? They both test the limits of speech activism and employment rights, which brings us to the law. So, David, let’s break down the legal framework for this.
David Harmon: First things first, unless you work for the government. The First Amendment doesn’t protect you at work. The Constitution restricts government action, not private employers. A private company can, generally speaking, terminate or discipline employees for political speech expression or affiliation, unless a specific law says otherwise.
Mariya Gonor: So the summary of this is basically if you work for a private company and you are fired for wearing a campaign shirt or posting a political meme, that typically is legal under the at will standard, unless it violates one of the statutes that we’re about to talk to right now.
David Harmon: Those are the boundaries.
Mariya Gonor: So these limitations could be placed into just three general buckets, right? The NLRA on the federal level. Right. The state and local laws, and also the anti-discrimination statute. So let’s get into each one of these to kind of show some of the application and the examples here.
David Harmon: Okay. So Mariya, there’s an important exception under the National Labor Relations Act. Which protects employee’s right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. That can include political or social justice expression if it’s linked to workplace issues.
Mariya Gonor: And the board, actually, the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, has addressed a number of cases in this vein. But a simple example of this could be employees arguing in favor of like a higher wage for all of them, or the ability to form a union if there is let’s say a proposal that would ban that, right? Those kind of conversations or those kind of political expressions would be protected under the NLRA.
David Harmon: Right, but that protection applies only to non-supervisory employees and it doesn’t give blanket immunity to all political messages.
Mariya Gonor: Oh, that’s absolutely fair. Okay. The other level of protection that exists that employers and employees should be mindful of is that on the state level. For instance, in California, the law prohibits employers from controlling or retaliating against employees political activity. Similarly, New York protects employees legal recreational activity, which can include attending rallies or political events off the clock, and a growing number of states have of duty conduct or political activity statutes that provide some degree of protection.
David Harmon: But those laws are narrowly interpreted Mariya, they don’t protect disruptive conduct and they don’t cover every form of expression. Each state is a little different, and it’s very important to be aware of what those differences are.
Mariya Gonor: So from the employer’s perspective, prior to engaging in any kind of enforcement of your policies on political speech, it’s important to make sure that the state allows you to actually engage in whatever enforcement you’re trying to do.
David Harmon: I mean that’s, that’s a rule of thumb that should cover any aspect of employment. Just to know what the law is.
Mariya Gonor: Right. Especially in the state where you’re operating. If you are operating across a number of states.
David Harmon: Yeah. In each state.
Mariya Gonor: And the third general bucket to be aware of is the anti-discrimination statute. So, while political affiliation is not a protected class under federal law. Very frequently, your political views could overlap with the identity or a protected characteristic of an employee. Remember that political speech often overlaps with protected categories. It’s like race, religion, or national origin. That is why discipline following, say, a pro Palestinian or pro Israeli post or Black Lives Matter statements can expose an employer to discrimination or retaliation claims, not because of the politics, but because of what those statements represent.
David Harmon: Okay, Mariya. So now we’re gonna talk about strategies for both employers and employees, as we always do in our episodes.
Mariya Gonor: So, David, start us with the employer perspective.
David Harmon: Okay. For employers, employers should expect politics to show up online in Slack or in break room conversations. Mm-hmm. And be ready with policies that are neutral. Consistent and are legally sound. It’s important to have clarity in those policies. Dress code and solicitation policies should ban political insignia or campaigning across the board, not selectively. And there should be a definition of working time and working areas. To avoid confusion, and as we’ve stated in so many of our episodes, policies should be applied evenly. Selective enforcement creates legal and reputational risk.
Mariya Gonor: Okay. The next strategy is to make sure that you are training your managers to deescalate. Political disputes and spot when the conversation veers into harassment. Document reasons for discipline and ensure that they tie to the policy, not necessarily viewpoint or employees protected characteristic. Finally, with respect to the off-duty conduct, evaluate local laws to make sure they are actually allowed to engage in the discipline.
David Harmon: So communication is key. Encourage respectful dialogue and reaffirm company values. Focus on professionalism, not politics. Consult with an attorney to make sure that you’re compliant with the NLRA. Because that will. Open you up to exposure.
Mariya Gonor: Yeah, we’ve talked about this in our prior episodes, but, uh, there is an NLRB decision that addresses that certain civility policies may be too broad and violate the NLRA.
David Harmon: Consultation is key.
Mariya Gonor: Key for sure.
David Harmon: Yeah.
Mariya Gonor: Okay. Now let’s talk about some of the employee strategies with respect to this issue.
David Harmon: So Mariya, employees need to understand that private workplaces aren’t public squares.
Mariya Gonor: That’s fair.
David Harmon: Even if you feel strongly about a cause, be mindful. Your employer generally has the right to restrict political expression during work hours. Or on company property. Know your state’s laws, know your employer’s policies, and remember. Activism at work can have consequences even if your intentions are good.
Mariya Gonor: Employees should also be mindful that certain online activity that is taking place off hours and off the premises could also lead to discipline. The law does not give you an unlimited right to speak your mind at work, but it does draw some boundaries around what employers can do in response.
David Harmon: So for employers, clarity, consistency. And neutrality are your best defenses for employees. Awareness and professionalism are your best tools.
Mariya Gonor: Thanks for joining us on this Employment Strategist podcast. We’ll see you next time where we are gonna address social media activism and the employer’s ability to limit social media use.
David Harmon: Thank you.