• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Koran burner Derek Fenton booted from his job at NJ Transit

You guys know I'm not a big fan of lawsuits. But the case here is pretty clear-cut. He was off duty, being Joe Citizen and protested. He works for a Gov't Agency, so that means punitive actions taken against him BY the NJ Transit are bound by the Constitution. In this case, he was fired for using his Right to Free Speech in a civilian capacity. That's what is the issue here.

If he worked for Bob's Toll Booths Inc. this would be an entirely different story. Private companies are not Gov't Agents and thus punitive measures by them are NOT bound by the Constitution. (General rule, obviously there are civil rights, and other areas this applies) however, in the case of Free Speech this is not so.
 
texmaster said:
He should. They are making a mockery of his right to free speech.
Click to expand...

He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
 
Hatuey said:
He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Click to expand...

Funny how Free Speech works when he works for THE GOV'T!
 
On what planet does the transit authority run a country?
 
Manc Skipper said:
On what planet does the transit authority run a country?
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself. Do you really not understand how a Gov't Agency is representing the Gov't and thus is bound in ways a Private Company is not?

I think you do, you're just spinning because you can't bring yourself to offer support to the guy because his actions offend you. That's dishonest, and you should be ashamed.
 
Hatuey said:
He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Click to expand...

His employer is the government. And the government can't fire him for this.
 
Your Star said:
His employer is the government. And the government can't fire him for this.
Click to expand...

If he's bound by a Code of Ethics that says he can't participate in demonstrations/whatever, he's toast. "Morals Clauses" and the like are perfectly legal. Totally depends how it's worded. And whether or not it's part of the Employee Handbook.
 
RightinNYC said:
Unless you want to argue that every single government employee represents the government 24/7, this guy was not there representing NJTransit.

Step away from this situation and imagine what would happen if the position you're arguing for were actually the law. Imagine if GWB had decreed that anyone employed by the federal government in any capacity would be fired if they ever objected to any administration policies in public. Under your theory, because no one has a right to work for the government, that decree would not violate anyone's first amendment rights. That's clearly not how the first amendment was designed to work.
Click to expand...

This isn't about disagreeing with government policy, it's about showing hatred toward a particular group. Why would the government want an employee that doesn't show general respect to the public? How do they know he's not already showing negative bias toward Muslim customers?

Again, the guy doesn't have a right to work for the government.
 
Such a code of ethics for government employees, in their off-time, as long as they are not representing their agency, would fail the constitutional litmus test. Just because it's in the handbook doesn't make it legal.
 
MaggieD said:
If he's bound by a Code of Ethics that says he can't participate in demonstrations/whatever, he's toast. "Morals Clauses" and the like are perfectly legal. Totally depends how it's worded. And whether or not it's part of the Employee Handbook.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with this is that he was doing this on his own free time. If he was doing this, and involved his employer in any way then I could see where that could be used. I would like to read the part of the Code of Ethics, I wonder if it's available?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Such a code of ethics for government employees, in their off-time, as long as they are not representing their agency, would fail the constitutional litmus test. Just because it's in the handbook doesn't make it legal.
Click to expand...

Tell Xerox and others:

Ethical Decision-Making Framework
You should assess the following criteria
to determine whether a specific behavior
or activity is appropriate:
1. Common sense. Generally speaking,
the appropriateness of a practice or
activity should be guided by common
sense and sound business judgment.
2. Public scrutiny. Take the public scrutiny
test: If you wouldn’t want to read about
your action on the front page of your
local newspaper, don’t do it.
3. Company Policy. Does the action
comply with Xerox policies or
public law?
4. Core Values. Does it align with our
Core Values?
5. When in doubt, ask! Your manager,
Human Resources and the Ethics Office
and Helpline are available to help you
do the right thing. See the Resources
section for additional information.
Click to expand...

http://www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/i/ir_Code_of_Conduct_EmployeeHandbook.pdf

Not sure it's that cut-and-dried.
 
Hatuey said:
He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Click to expand...


Is that so...Amazing! In one statement you have contradicted decades of liberal talking points.


j-mac
 
MaggieD said:
If he's bound by a Code of Ethics that says he can't participate in demonstrations/whatever, he's toast. "Morals Clauses" and the like are perfectly legal. Totally depends how it's worded. And whether or not it's part of the Employee Handbook.
Click to expand...

Was he doing it on his own time as a private citizen?
 
American said:
Was he ashamed of his free speech rights? Probably not. If he had burned Bible pages, think we'd have a newspaper article or a forum thread?
Click to expand...

What if a Church employee was burning Bibles?
 
j-mac said:
It would be in the news....Which I think was the point....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah you are right it would be in the news. Do you think they person should be canned? What is the person was a janitor or minister does it make any difference?
 
Councilman said:
I agree he was wronged but in a court case it will either depend on how good the employee hand book spelled out the rule under which he was fired or in whether he can convince a jury he was wronged.

I think he has a chance because the Country will for the most part think the first Amendment out weighs the Co. rules. Besides if it's like California and it doesn't require all 12 in the jury for a fining in a civil case. so he has a chance.

We're for the most part tired of the claims of Tolerance in favor of Muslims and to hell with Christians.
Click to expand...

NJ transit sounds like a government type facility. In that case, they cannot fire him for exercising his rights. And I would say even in private sector, he'd stand a good chance of wrongful termination. I don't think people should lose their income over the exercise of rights.
 
winston53660 said:
Yeah you are right it would be in the news. Do you think they person should be canned? What is the person was a janitor or minister does it make any difference?
Click to expand...


Well, Winston, with all due respect you are asking a hypothetical that I don't think has a standard answer for all people, that said, I guess it would depend on the Church or Temple, or Mosque that employed her, or him in the end, and why they fired them, if they indeed did. That doesn't mean that the action wouldn't go without challenge should someone be let go in that situation. And, it also depends on too many other factors to answer accurately.

What I think doesn't matter, only what the employer does.


j-mac
 
Hatuey said:
He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the government cannot discriminate on the basis of exercising rights.
 
j-mac said:
Well, Winston, with all due respect you are asking a hypothetical that I don't think has a standard answer for all people, that said, I guess it would depend on the Church or Temple, or Mosque that employed her, or him in the end, and why they fired them, if they indeed did. That doesn't mean that the action wouldn't go without challenge should someone be let go in that situation. And, it also depends on too many other factors to answer accurately.

What I think doesn't matter, only what the employer does.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah it is a tough one that is for sure. Personally I think it is full of a ton of gray.
 
MaggieD said:
If he's bound by a Code of Ethics that says he can't participate in demonstrations/whatever, he's toast. "Morals Clauses" and the like are perfectly legal. Totally depends how it's worded. And whether or not it's part of the Employee Handbook.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what the ethics handbook says, as the state is still bound by the first amendment. Just because the handbook might say "we will fire you for XYZ" doesn't mean that the state can actually fire you for XYZ.

Orion said:
This isn't about disagreeing with government policy, it's about showing hatred toward a particular group. Why would the government want an employee that doesn't show general respect to the public? How do they know he's not already showing negative bias toward Muslim customers?

Again, the guy doesn't have a right to work for the government.
Click to expand...

He has a right not to be punished by the government for exercising protected speech. Firing him for saying this is a punishment. This is almost certainly protected speech.

Edit: Eliminate "koran" from the story and substitute in "bible/american flag/picture of GWB/republican or democratic symbol." That guy would be showing the same "hate" toward a particular group each time and could certainly make each group feel uncomfortable. Should the government be able to fire him because of that?
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
I have the right to call someone a nigger or a spic if I want - purely racist terms. That's protected the 1st Amendment.
However - if I worked for the state or federal government and said these things it would be quite understandable when they let me go, or when they pushed me to resign.
Click to expand...

Randomly shouting racial slurs at other individuals would be hard pressed to be considered a political statement and thus protected speech. Hell, I think if you're shouting racial slurs at someone it could technically be assult in some places.

A more accurate example would be if you were at a political rally holding a sign that says "N-Words shouldn't vote". In that case, no, if you're a government employee you shouldn't get fired for it.

Hatuey said:
He has the right to free speech. His employers has the right to fire him if they don't like what he is saying. There is no such thing as a right to a job.
Click to expand...

This would be absolutely true, if he wasn't a government employee.

As a government employee, he can not be fired for exercising speech outside of his duties for the government that are political in nature. Would it be okay if a NY transit worker burnt a copy of the Patriot Act back under Bush and he was fired? No.

MaggieD said:
If he's bound by a Code of Ethics that says he can't participate in demonstrations/whatever, he's toast. "Morals Clauses" and the like are perfectly legal. Totally depends how it's worded. And whether or not it's part of the Employee Handbook.
Click to expand...

"Codes of Ethics" are a little lower on the priority level in regards to legality than the Constitution of the United States of America.

Political Speech is protected from punishment by the government.

MaggieD said:
Tell Xerox and others:
Click to expand...

Last I looked Xerox was private sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom