Not likely (but read on). Joe Crain was
officially fired this week. We can assume the reason was his public criticism
of his employer’s insistence on using a “Code Red” banner when even a hint of
severe weather was in the forecast. In central Illinois, especially during the
spring, that possibility is prevalent.
Crain was saying that WICS was basically
using Code Red to drum up ratings but it was also like crying wolf. Viewers were
vocal in backing Crain’s position.
Here’s why Crain is unlikely to win a
lawsuit, if he seeks recourse.
Employment-at-Will: This is the bedrock of
American employment law. It means an employer can fire anyone, at any time, for
any reason, or no reason (unless the reason is prohibited by law).
First Amendment: Yes, Crain was fired for
his speech. But WICS is a private employer. The First Amendment doesn’t apply.
Contract: Yes, Crain likely had an
employment contract. Just as likely, the contract preserved the station’s right
to fire Crain at-will. Many employment contracts contain non-disparagement
clauses—if the employee rips the employer, the employee can be fired.
Defamation: Unless WICS speaks out against
Crain, and intentionally falsifies information about him, this is not an avenue
for Crain.
Is Crain totally out of luck? No.
Illinois has a tort (a civil action) called the public policy exception to employment at will. It means an employee cannot be fired for upholding a public policy.
Here is a basic illustration: Suppose truck company fired a driver for failing to drive his vehicle 80 m.p.h. This would violate an important public policy: speed limits for trucks in order to save lives.
Illinois has a tort (a civil action) called the public policy exception to employment at will. It means an employee cannot be fired for upholding a public policy.
Here is a basic illustration: Suppose truck company fired a driver for failing to drive his vehicle 80 m.p.h. This would violate an important public policy: speed limits for trucks in order to save lives.
Crain could argue that his job was to
inform the public of imminent severe weather. WICS was interfering with his
duty to provide credible warnings. Usually, however, this tort requires that a
plaintiff show that he or she was required to break or ignore a law—often courts
say a “fundamental” law, not just any law. There is no law, to the best of my
knowledge, that WICS broke by running Code Red banners on sunny days.
No comments:
Post a Comment