Ohio woman claims she was fired for Obama vote

Feb 20, 2013 Full story: WBIR-TV Knoxville 220

A southwest Ohio woman says she was fired three days after the November election because she voted for President Barack Obama.

Full Story
First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#1 Feb 20, 2013
Before the whiny liberals get started, a la Larry and the usual suspects, as I said on another thread on this topic, she has not been discriminated against in the protected sense. Discrimination in that her employer didn't like her destructive political choice for president? Yes, but that is not illegal.

I presume (maybe incorrectly) that she is an at will employee, which means she can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as it is not one for which there is lawful protection. Those protections are race, religion, sex, color, national origin, family status, disability, veterans and genetics. Stupid choices is not on the list, so the business is on firm ground here.

Since: Dec 07

Athens, TX

#2 Feb 20, 2013
Uh oh, a demorat response to the story of the woman voting six times for obama.......film at eleven. LMAO
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#3 Feb 20, 2013
Voting is a private matter.

If she is going around blabbing about her vote, there are bound to be people who don't agree with her.

Since most jobs are 'at will' positions, an employer can fire a person for ANY reason or NO REASON.

Since she already KNEW the position of the company's President, it was stupid of her to open her mouth.

She's guilty of being not to bright ...
Sheik Yerbouti

Pennington, NJ

#4 Feb 20, 2013
If the company used illegal means to discover how she voted she has a good case and should sue for millions. Letting employers dictate how employees vote is a very slippery slope and is unamerican!

“The Commander-in-Chi ef”

Since: Jun 07

Always bet on Black

#5 Feb 20, 2013
Before the 2012 election there were very bitter right wingers who owned companies threatening to lay people off if Obama won reelection. I even saw a sign on the back of a company truck that read "not hiring until Obama is out of office"... luckily her vote help Obama win reelection and thus the economy will continue to improve as government programs will be there to help keep her on her feet until she gets some other job... or win the lawsuit when she put that company out of business
Lance Winslow

San Jose, CA

#6 Feb 20, 2013
Her phone is constantly ringing with lawyers willing to represent her pro bono. Her ex-employer is going to find this very costly.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#7 Feb 20, 2013
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
If the company used illegal means to discover how she voted she has a good case and should sue for millions. Letting employers dictate how employees vote is a very slippery slope and is unamerican!
The employer wasn't dictating her vote; they told her that a consequense would be that, should the company find itself in a position to have to lay off employees, that those voting for Øbama would be the first to go. As I said before, you pays your dues, you takes your chances and she got what she paid for.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#8 Feb 20, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
Before the 2012 election there were very bitter right wingers who owned companies threatening to lay people off if Obama won reelection. I even saw a sign on the back of a company truck that read "not hiring until Obama is out of office"... luckily her vote help Obama win reelection and thus the economy will continue to improve as government programs will be there to help keep her on her feet until she gets some other job... or win the lawsuit when she put that company out of business
Not threats that "if Øbama won", reality that if they voted for Øbama and the company had to lay off employees, they'd be the first to go. She was warned that if she voted against her own employment interest, she and others like her would pay the price.

“The Commander-in-Chi ef”

Since: Jun 07

Always bet on Black

#10 Feb 20, 2013
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Not threats that "if Øbama won", reality that if they voted for Øbama and the company had to lay off employees, they'd be the first to go. She was warned that if she voted against her own employment interest, she and others like her would pay the price.
Well that's what the government programs are there for...
Enrique

United States

#13 Feb 20, 2013
Well the voting is supposed to be secret! If she goes telling everyone, people WILL disagree with her. So it's technically her fault :-/
see the light

El Paso, TX

#15 Feb 20, 2013
She did not get fired because of a vote, it was because she was acknowledging her stupidity.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#16 Feb 20, 2013
You were working for an a-hole and you want your job back? Why?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Feb 20, 2013
Far Away wrote:
Before the whiny liberals get started, a la Larry and the usual suspects, as I said on another thread on this topic, she has not been discriminated against in the protected sense. Discrimination in that her employer didn't like her destructive political choice for president? Yes, but that is not illegal.
I presume (maybe incorrectly) that she is an at will employee, which means she can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as it is not one for which there is lawful protection. Those protections are race, religion, sex, color, national origin, family status, disability, veterans and genetics. Stupid choices is not on the list, so the business is on firm ground here.
Then you must have no problem with the anti-gays who claim they were fired because they voted against marraige equality.....

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#20 Feb 20, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's what the government programs are there for...
Since 2008, nobama has proven beyond all doubt that the government cannot create private sector jobs....

Government progams are NOT there for that purpose, jughead.

You're hallucinating again.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#23 Feb 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must have no problem with the anti-gays who claim they were fired because they voted against marraige equality.....
Not that I agree with your phrase "anti-gays", but yes, if they were warned and got fired, so be it. Make a stand, but be ready for the consequences.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Feb 20, 2013
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I agree with your phrase "anti-gays", but yes, if they were warned and got fired, so be it. Make a stand, but be ready for the consequences.
If they vote against gay rights, that makes them anti-gay. It also made some of them fired! At least you support equal treatment for once.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Feb 20, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting to keep marriage from being changed is not anti gay
Many gays are not pro gay marriage
Right, and voting to keep blacks from marrying isn't anti-black.....

While some gays may not personally plan to marry, I don't know of any gay person who opposes other having the opportunity to marry.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#27 Feb 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they vote against gay rights, that makes them anti-gay. It also made some of them fired! At least you support equal treatment for once.
Be homosexual all you or anyone else wants. I don't give a rat's ass. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and then it would be a non-issue. Marriage licensing these days is all about revenue anyway. It shouldn't bestow special benefits or privileges on anyone. Besides, if a government can tell you that you CAN be married, then a government can certainly tell you that you CAN'T. That's what the issue of homosexual marriage amounts to today--being told you can't--but we're far afield of the topic.
Who

Wyoming, MI

#28 Feb 20, 2013
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Be homosexual all you or anyone else wants. I don't give a rat's ass. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and then it would be a non-issue. Marriage licensing these days is all about revenue anyway. It shouldn't bestow special benefits or privileges on anyone. Besides, if a government can tell you that you CAN be married, then a government can certainly tell you that you CAN'T. That's what the issue of homosexual marriage amounts to today--being told you can't--but we're far afield of the topic.
If they did that there would be no more benefits and the gays wouldn't want to get married.

That's really all this is about, that's all the gays want is the benefits.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#31 Feb 20, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true for all gays or the majority would have fought for equal rights under a gay civil union
Many like me would vote for that but will fight gay marriage
Equal rights under a civil union would be a national law by now
Have a civil contract and be done with it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montgomery County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jury debates fate of Anthony Stargell Sep '14 Dennis E Gannon 1
Ohio woman castrates man after offer of $13 for... Aug '14 The Duke of Hazard 1
Teen found guilty in bus stop shooting Jul '14 Net Nut 2
New program aims to get kids reading over summer (Jun '14) Jun '14 The Duke Of Hazard 2
Dayton man charged with physical and sexual ass... (Apr '14) Apr '14 The Hack Checker 1
Few dogs labled as dangerous despite new law (Mar '14) Mar '14 Gun Nut 1
Trotwood apartments to get $4 million in upgrades (Jan '14) Jan '14 Just Me 2
More from around the web