California woman files $10 million suit against former employer for firing her after riots at U.S Capitol

East Bay Times ^ | 1/28/2021 | Sean Emery

[simpson96]

An Orange County woman has filed a $10 million civil lawsuit against a former employer she claims wrongly fired her for attending the Jan. 6 protests that culminated in a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Attorneys representing Leah Snyder, in a lawsuit filed Tuesday at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, contend Snyder didn’t enter the Capitol building or take part in violence, but allege her employer, Alight Solutions, “adopted a version of the events” that were “advanced” by an unnamed “cancel culture media outlet.”

According to the lawsuit, Snyder spent more than 20 years working remotely as a computer programmer and coder for Alight Solutions, an outsourcing company based in Illinois.

Based on a search of federal court records, there was no indication as of Wednesday that Snyder is one of the more than 150 people charged in connection to the siege of the Capitol by a mob seeking to overturn the presidential election.

According to the lawsuit, Snyder while taking paid time off, traveled to Washington D.C., where she “listened to speeches made by the President of the United States and other important persons” then joined a group that were “peacefully walking to the capital.” She took several “selfies” with friends, according to the lawsuit, then left and went home.

Snyder later posted the two “selfies” to a social media thread, according to the lawsuit. Her attorneys wrote that Snyder “felt uplifted by virtue of her participation in a peaceful protest” and wanted to “explain her participation to those who had not attended what she reasonably perceived was a peaceful protest of election vote counting procedures.”(snip)

The lawsuit accuses Alight Solutions of failing to protect Snyder from cyber-bullying and alleges the company retaliated against her for exercising her civil rights.

[CodeToad]

Soapbox: One of pet peeves are conservatives laying down like sheep and crying ‘Victim!’ when they actually have things they can do. This is one of those pet peeves. There are laws to help people sue for being wrongly fired.

[MarkL]

What we're seeing today is a new version of "The Nuremburg Laws," rather than being enacted directly by the government, instead we're seeing governments agents, AKA big business, banking, insurance, basically any group closely aligned with, or regulated by the government, to do the government's business.

This is something that's scared the hell out of me for more than a decade about a "cashless" society.

Mark

[j.havenfarm]

Why are you so tendentious? Go read it yourself, Mr. Chief Justice. You can’t pick words like “retaliate” off the page and just go with that. Here’s a discussion of the statute. Take a look at 98.7 as well.

Don’t respond to me. I’m not interested in having discussions with people who can’t be civil. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/californiapreventingunlawfulworkplaceretaliation.aspx

[ssfromla]

Firing an employee for expressing political opinions is NOT illegal.

Yes it is.

[CodeToad]

You are not civil. You think you can tell people to shut up and take it when they have options. That isn’t civil. That is tyrannical.

Telling people in a soft voice to get bent is not being civil.

[CodeToad]

“Go read it yourself, Mr. Chief Justice.”

You’re the one giving bad legal advice and telling people they have no options. We don’t need barracks lawyers like you telling people to shut up and take it.

[j.havenfarm]

It wasn’t bad legal opinion, it was the correct legal opinion as the link I gave you demonstrates. You’re probably one of those geniuses who were counting on magic executive orders, declarations of martial law, quo warranto writs, maybe a class action lawsuit, to overturn the election.
You’re an ignorant fool and I still can’t figure out why you’re so exercised about this. If the law supports one, that’s great. But cherry picking words out of the statute does not legal analysis make. Personally I think it’s quite unfortunate that the termination of this woman in retaliation for nonviolent political activity is not actionable under California law, but it’s not.
I’m not responding further. Get bent, jerk

[Svartalfiar]

California Labor Code § 98.6
California CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106]

She works remotely for a company based in Illinois. While they do have an office in CA, unless she's working specifically for that office, they might be able to argue that CA law shouldn't apply. Especially if her employment agreement says IL law.

[porter_knorr]

Where is her UI?
If she would file in California...think that gives her the benefits. It will be interesting to watch as typically the state is normally for employees and the employers get screwed.

[Svartalfiar]

Where is her UI?
If she would file in California...think that gives her the benefits. It will be interesting to watch as typically the state is normally for employees and the employers get screwed.

Normally, you should be filing UI in the State in which you worked 'at', as the State where the company is, is the State where they're paying the UI taxes. Same thing if you move, you apply for UI in your previous State, not your current one (depending on time).

But, if she was fired "for cause", she may not have been eligible for UI. If she even tried to get it.