A person’s political affiliation shouldn’t be a ground for termination. Yet, there are still cases wherein employers will coerce employees to vote for a candidate they believe is good for their business. The act of impairing an employee’s career over political disagreements is considered wrong and inappropriate.

Two hours from Columbia, in Dayton, a defense contractor and its president is being named in a wrongful termination lawsuit. A woman was fired for voting for President Barack Obama in the recently concluded presidential elections. The President favors policies that discourage or lowers government spending on defense.

The lawsuit claims that the company’s president threatened to terminate employees if Obama gets re-elected and that supporters would be fired first. It also claims that the woman is paid $12 an hour with no overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week and is not exempt from overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards.

The plaintiff’s voting preference came up in a conversation after the election. She was fired not soon after. Company spokesperson is claiming that her termination was in the company’s best interest citing uncertainties in defense spending. The current administration is looking to make huge cuts in the federal budget as part of its efforts to save the economy from deficits.

Experts argue that the case is pitting at-will termination employment against the Ohio Revised Code 3599 which protects employees from employer intimidation and retaliation, especially those that involve elections. If won, the case may incite lawmakers to consider new employment law legislation. The employee still has to prove that she was not fired due to economic reasons.

LGBT activists want Presidential backing on employment reforms

President Barack Obama's recent inaugural speech emphatically addressed gay-right advocacy, earning him the applause of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender groups nationwide. With another four-year term, LGBT groups are wondering if the President's speech will soon translate into affirmative action laws to support the gay-rights in the workplace.

The activist's key demands require the President to issue an executive order that bars federal contractors from committing workplace discrimination against gay employees. In most states, employers are not prohibited by law from firing or refusing to hire an employee based on perceptions of the employee's sexual orientation.

Originally, the President would not issue an order that protects gay employees in companies with government contracts citing that there is already an effort by lawmakers to better address it. This frustrated many gay advocacy groups last year. The decision didn't sit well with the gay community although it was believed that Congress was drafting much broader legislation on the matter.

Although a federal law bans discrimination on the basis of gender and ethnic origin, there is no law to discourage employers from firing or refusing to hire workers based on sexual orientation. Twenty-one states have laws that prohibit workplace discrimination in government offices based on sexual orientation. Twelve states have extended these laws to private sector employment, including government contractors.

The current order in use is now almost half a century old. President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 back in 1965. It was the first time that the term affirmative action was used in a government decree and it prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on gender and race.

A new executive order will mean that there is a huge possibility that Congress will be forced to enact federal laws that protect LGBT members in the workplace. This may take some persuading given that Congress is dominated by the opposition. Even if the President issues an order, the Republicans may not be easily swayed.

(Written by Vee Dela Casa for Miller Cohen PLC posted on February 6, 2013.)

 

 

Tags: sex discrimination, sexual orientation, workplace discrimination, LGBT, lesbians, gays, transgenders, executive order, congressional legislation