Berkeley Hot Dog Stand Fires Cook Seen At Charlottesville Protest

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They didn't fire him. During the course of the discussion about his presence at the protest, he resigned.

Your comment is ridiculous, btw. But I think you know that.

That's different than what was reported yesterday and if things have changed then I haven't heard about it. If he ultimately resigned and wasn't fired then this entire conversation we are currently having is moot. So either way I still don't care about what you are saying here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They didn't fire him. During the course of the discussion about his presence at the protest, he resigned.

Your comment is ridiculous, btw. But I think you know that.

That's different than what was reported yesterday and if things have changed then I haven't heard about it. If he ultimately resigned and wasn't fired then this entire conversation we are currently having is moot. So either way I still don't care about what you are saying here.

Top Dog says he resigned.

However, my point is not moot because of the context under which Cole White resigned. He was confronted by his employers about his political activity on his own free time and resigned during the course of the conversation. I think he probably has a meritorious case, but I don't know exactly what was said in the conversation.

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1101

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Link

California Code, Labor Code - LAB § 1102.6

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Link

I don't think Top Dog could overcome that burden of proof:



Their public statement:

“On Saturday, August 12, it came to our attention that one of our employees was involved in the recent ‘alt-right’ rally in Charlottesville, North Carolina [sic]. Later that day we spoke with Cole White. During that conversation Cole chose to voluntarily resign his employment with top dog and we accepted his resignation,” the company wrote in a press release Monday.

“We pride ourselves on embracing and respecting all our differences and every individual’s choice to do as that person wishes within the boundaries of the law. We do not endorse hatred or any illegal conduct. It simply is not part of our culture.

We do respect our employees’ right to their opinions. They are free to make their own choices but must accept the responsibilities of those choices."

Link

Regardless of how heinous Cole White's political beliefs might be, he didn't do anything illegal by attending a political protest.

***

I am just trying to 'Deny Ignorance,' not serve as counsel for Cole White.

originally posted by: Grambler
Well the rioters on the left in groups like Antifa and BLM and other Anti trump people better watch out too, or they may be outed and lose their jobs.

Oh wait, they are already unemployed.

Hahahah

Oh man....

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Really, and if the company would fire someone that was seen at a gay rally, you'd just accept that too? Hypocrisy is bliss isn't it? Yes, employers can be sued for discrimination.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Cole White was probably told, quit and you get unemployment payments or get fired and get nothing. I hope he sues them out of business. That crap on the sign claiming to support free association is likely a very big lie. Defaming Cole White publicly on the sign is SLANDER too. Exactly, what actions was Cole accused of? Free Speech. Distasteful business.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Cole White was probably told, quit and you get unemployment payments or get fired and get nothing. I hope he sues them out of business.

Well if you quit you are not eligible to collect unemployment benefits.

Sues them for what? There is a stark difference between firing someone for being a racist bigot versus someone who is gay. Being gay, or Black, or Latino, or Asian, or Jewish, or Christian, is protected by the Civil Rights Act. Was he fired or pressured to quit for one of those reasons? No, he was pressured or quite because he was a racist / Nazi / etc........ Not protected by any stretch.

No, as I stated before owning a business is not a suicide pact. Unless this outlet was in say Chechnya it was a risk to keep such a bigot on the staff and would have hurt the owners business so its a no brainer......

a reply to: FredT

And you are judge, jury and executioner? Who is to say Cole White was racist?

Read you own signature "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----- Benjamin Franklin

Is Cole White's liberty exempted in your mind?

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: FredT

And you are judge, jury and executioner? Who is to say Cole White was racist?

He marched in white power (KKK Nazi's etc yes I'm lumping them into one group) demonstration. Am I judging him? ABSOLUTELY. Is he a racist in my option yes. However, I did not put him on trial nor will I feel he should be unless he directly committed acts of violence. And while I support the death penalty, execution seems pretty harsh no for misguided opinions ....

Read you own signature "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----- Benjamin Franklin

Is Cole White's liberty exempted in your mind?

How EXACTLY have I or anybody denied him his liberty? I / we / they did not deny him the ability to non violently protest the removal of confederate statues. I did not prevent him from joining with other white power /Nazi's / bring back the confederacy / KKK types to express their beliefs no matter how repugnant I find them.

I'm perplexed as to how you would come to the conclusion that I or anybody denied him his liberty.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: FredT

And you are judge, jury and executioner? Who is to say Cole White was racist?

He marched in white power (KKK Nazi's etc yes I'm lumping them into one group) demonstration. Am I judging him? ABSOLUTELY. Is he a racist in my option yes. However, I did not put him on trial nor will I feel he should be unless he directly committed acts of violence. And while I support the death penalty, execution seems pretty harsh no for misguided opinions ....

Read you own signature "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----- Benjamin Franklin

Is Cole White's liberty exempted in your mind?

How EXACTLY have I or anybody denied him his liberty? I / we / they did not deny him the ability to non violently protest the removal of confederate statues. I did not prevent him from joining with other white power /Nazi's / bring back the confederacy / KKK types to express their beliefs no matter how repugnant I find them.

I'm perplexed as to how you would come to the conclusion that I or anybody denied him his liberty.

You are the same type of person that would have supported firing a black person that marched in the black power Martin Luther King rallies. Freedom of association is a liberty that you don't support apparently. You seem to have a blindspot to your own bigotries. Ironic since your signature doesn't sync with your posting logic.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
You are the same type of bigot that would have supported firing a black person that marched in the Martin Luther King rallies. Freedom of association is a liberty that you don't support apparently. You seem to have a blindspot to your own bigotries.

Ah nothing like the tried and true Ad Hom attack. Am I a bigot because I am intolerant of his Nazi/white power links and their ideology? Perhaps, but I am also supportive of his right to protest (peacefully) his IMHO disjointed, perverted views? Yes I would go as far to say when you listen to the White Power / Nazi guys they are very similar to the same kind of extreme rhetoric you see in ISIS or OBL. (Granted these guys are homegrown) but I digress.......

As far as firing someone because they were part of the MLK protests, no I would not fire someone because of their race but since I was not even alive in that time frame of Martin Luther King, I would again point you to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits those things......
en.wikipedia.org...

Again despite my answering this previously, am I opposed to his 'Freedom of Association"? NOPE. I have never advocated that his right to associate with Nazi's / White Power / et al. be curtailed. In fact the ACLU has consistently supported their rights to protest. I have no issue with him choosing to join whatever protest or organization he deems fit. However, there are consequences and risk with any endeavor especially ones that are not protected above.

originally posted by: FredT
However, there are consequences and risk with any endeavor especially ones that are not protected above.

California is one of three states that specifically makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate based on political activity and affiliation. His participation in the 'Unite the Right' protest is protected with regard to his employment in California.

See my previous comment here for the specific laws: Link

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not so fast. I asked our Unions labor attorney and he pointed me to this PDF www.emlf.org/clientuploads/directory/whitepaper/ossi_mcclain_warner_12.pdf

The California statute protecting employee political activities prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that prevents an employee from engaging or participating in politics or becoming a candidate for office and from controlling or directing an employee’s political activities or affiliations.145 The statute also prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing employees by threat of discharge.146 The California Supreme Court expressly recognized that these protections cannot be confined to purely partisan activities but cover any activities involving the “espousal of a candidate or a cause,” including participating in broad social movements.147 Notwithstanding this expansive reading of the law, some courts have declined to extend these protections to activities
advocating violent conduct or activities designed to improve the employer’s labor conditions.

So its a crapshoot if the courts would agree

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not so fast. I asked our Unions labor attorney and he pointed me to this PDF www.emlf.org/clientuploads/directory/whitepaper/ossi_mcclain_warner_12.pdf

The California statute protecting employee political activities prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that prevents an employee from engaging or participating in politics or becoming a candidate for office and from controlling or directing an employee’s political activities or affiliations.145 The statute also prohibits an employer from coercing or influencing employees by threat of discharge.146 The California Supreme Court expressly recognized that these protections cannot be confined to purely partisan activities but cover any activities involving the “espousal of a candidate or a cause,” including participating in broad social movements.147 Notwithstanding this expansive reading of the law, some courts have declined to extend these protections to activities advocating violent conduct or activities designed to improve the employer’s labor conditions.

So its a crapshoot if the courts would agree

Not so fast yourself.

That footnote refers to this:

Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court, 171 P.2d 21, 24 (Cal. 1946) (explaining that the statute was not intended to prevent a defense contractor from taking adverse action against an employee that was advocating the overthrowing of the government or whose loyalty to the United States was questionable).

So far as anyone knows, Cole White was simply photographed at a protest called "Unite the Right" where several groups gathered together. The protest was supposedly about the removal of a statue some people feel is offensive, not the advocation of violence.

Besides, you suggested his participation in the protest was not protected, but it is...unless you have some evidence it wasn't that I have yet to see.

The Klan should take notes from ANTIFA and wear masks and hoods.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
You are the same type of bigot that would have supported firing a black person that marched in the Martin Luther King rallies. Freedom of association is a liberty that you don't support apparently. You seem to have a blindspot to your own bigotries.

Ah nothing like the tried and true Ad Hom attack. Am I a bigot because I am intolerant of his Nazi/white power links and their ideology? Perhaps, but I am also supportive of his right to protest (peacefully) his IMHO disjointed, perverted views? Yes I would go as far to say when you listen to the White Power / Nazi guys they are very similar to the same kind of extreme rhetoric you see in ISIS or OBL. (Granted these guys are homegrown) but I digress.......

As far as firing someone because they were part of the MLK protests, no I would not fire someone because of their race but since I was not even alive in that time frame of Martin Luther King, I would again point you to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits those things......
en.wikipedia.org...

Again despite my answering this previously, am I opposed to his 'Freedom of Association"? NOPE. I have never advocated that his right to associate with Nazi's / White Power / et al. be curtailed. In fact the ACLU has consistently supported their rights to protest. I have no issue with him choosing to join whatever protest or organization he deems fit. However, there are consequences and risk with any endeavor especially ones that are not protected above.

I was merely pointing out you like to cherry pick whom and which liberties suit your intolerance, Intolerance which you admitted to, that you already judged him of being guilty of racism. How can you not see that you are what you protest against?

a reply to: xuenchen

ACTIONS have consequences, remember that's the right's creed, or does that only apply to the left?

a reply to: magnetik

Well.. They used to.
For some really strange reason, they feel like they don't have to wear them anymore.. /s