May 24, 2012

Ninth Circuit Remands Board Decision Regarding Employee's Profanity-Laced Tirade Against Owner

This week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a step towards undoing a controversial recent Board decision when it found that the Board erred in analyzing whether an employee lost the protection of the Act during a profanity-laced tirade against the company owner.

This case involves a car salesman who was terminated just months after his hire.  During that brief tenure, the employee complained about meal and restroom breaks, commissions, salary, and the owner's refusal to disclose the direct dealer costs of the vehicles.  In response, the owner invited the employee to work elsewhere and ultimately called the employee into his office to discuss his attitude.  During that meeting, the employee became irate and called the owner several inappropriate names, including an “f---ing crook” and an “a—hole.”Just before pushing his chair aside and telling the owner that he would regret firing him, the employee added that no one liked the owner and the employees talked behind his back.  Not surprisingly, the employee was terminated.

Following his termination, the employee filed an unfair labor practice with the NLRB.  The ALJ found that the employee had engaged in protected activity under the Act through his wage and working condition complaints, however surrendered that protection due to the obscene remarks and personal attacks against the owner.  Upon review, the Board disagreed and held that the employee did not forfeit the protections of the Act just because he launched into obscenities (and hinted that threats were needed to lose protection of the Act).  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the Board erred in its analysis of the actual outburst.  Specifically, the Court indicated a weariness to allow such outlandish insubordination to be protected by the Act and instructed the Board to review the evidence to determine if the employee's behavior was menacing or "at least physically aggressive" when reaching its ultimate decision regarding protection under the Act.

The Ninth Circuit's decision can be found here Plaza Auto Center, Inc. v. NLRB

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Associate

Adam L. Bartrom is an associate in the Fort Wayne, Indiana office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department.

Mr. Bartrom has dedicated his practice to representing management interests in which he routinely represents employers in state and federal courts as well as administrative agencies, such as the Department of Labor (DOL), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), and the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Human Relations Commission. Mr. Bartrom has effectively represented employers...

260-425-4629

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.