A United Airlines pilot has suggested via Twitter that Hillary Clinton should be hanged for treason. First Officer Michael Folk serves part-time in the West Virginia House of Delegates and part time flying for United Airlines as a First Officer. Folk’s remarks have been met with fierce condemnation from many, including United, and he has now backtracked, claiming his tweet was “clearly hyperbole”.
His first tweet stated–
@HillaryClinton You should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution… then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC.
That caused an immediate stir, but he initially doubled-down on his comments, adding these two tweets–
Sorry, I don’t mince words… read this story & watch this video & maybe you’ll understand.
That tweet included a link to a video about the Clinton e-mail controversy.
The following morning he tweeted–
“Hillary supporters coming out of the woodwork this morning…”
But then he had an “epiphany”.
Many Twitter users quickly brought the tweet to the attention of United, which responded, “We are appalled by comments advocating harm to any person. They do not represent United Airlines and we are looking into the matter further.”
After reading that, Folk deleted the controversial tweets and made his Twitter account private.
He has now gone on CNN to claim he did not really mean that Hillary should be hanged…but still believes that she is guilty of treason (for which conviction carriers the death penalty).
But United has issued another statement–
This pilot has been removed from his schedule and is not flying pending our investigation. We are appalled by his threatening comments.
So here’s an interesting legal question that merits another post — what should be done to this pilot? He expressed his views as an elected official and not as a representative of United. Yet, advocating for Hillary Clinton to be hanged after the FBI failed to prosecute her on a crime far less than treason just seems crazy, questioning his fitness to fly. Further, he has the picture above on his Twitter account, linking indirectly his sentiment to United Airlines.
Election season in America…always interesting.
To the extent there’s a legal question at all, it’s resolved by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. A private company is otherwise entitled to fire an employee for political speech. Not really an “interesting legal question”
Of course it is an interesting legal question because he did this on his own time not in anyway purporting to speak in relation to his employment or on behalf of his employer. Indeed, his contract may control but if his contract his like many contracts, the wording will be fuzzy and open to interpretation and the clause in question may be severable as a clause of adhesion in contravention of public policy.
There is no law in the US that prohibits a private company from taking action against an employee based on things he says or does in his private life.
While things can be severable as against public policy, it isn’t against public policy. It happens all the time. So, not an interesting legal question if one knows how American employment law, which has a presumpton of at-will employment, works.
Some states such as California prohibit employers from firing employees for “lawful off-duty conduct”.
Also, you’re using adhesion contract incorrectly.
A collective bargaining agreement where the terms of discipline and termination are negotiated is not an adhesion contract.
There is an “if” there, thus I would agree, it is an interesting legal question
What is UA’s policy regarding employees’ political speech on private social media accounts? I believe it’s been pretty well established that employers have the right to discipline employees for statements made on private medium, though personally I strongly disagree with such policies and wish someone would take such a case to the Supreme Court.
However, I suspect this guy may have hung himself (no pun intended) by a) wearing his uniform in his Twitter profile picture, which seems to raise the question of whether he really is representing UA, and b) advocating for HRC to be executed by public hanging. He should have just stopped at “you should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution”; threats, even tongue-in-cheek, cross the line in my opinion. That, and he really should have been smarter and set up a separate Twitter handle for his role as an elected official. That should have eliminated the controversy entirely – I’m pretty sure that policy or no policy, UA would not have the right to restrict speech made in the capacity of a public official.
Go back and look at the language intelligence officials used on Snowden when his leaks were announced. You’ll find it wasn’t much better (drone strike, assasination, etc.)
Adam, you are simply incorrect here in arguing that this is an easy case — there is a lot at play here including, as Meanmeosh points out, that he may have spoken in his capacity as an elected official. No matter how clear cut you may deem the issue, a legal argument can (and likely will) challenge United should it terminate this man’s employment. Assuming the contract falls under IL law, the state does not have the explicit political speech protections that other states do but such protections may be read into the law and thus withstand the “we contracted out of it” argument.
Certain jurisdictions in IL have protections like — “It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer . . . [to discriminate against any employee or applicant] based wholly or partially on [an employee’s belonging to or endorsing any political party or organization or taking part in any activities of a political nature]… [except] where such factors are bona fide occupational qualifications necessary for such employment.”
Was the pilot’s statement “taking part in any activity of a political nature” or did it go beyond that — did it actually advocate violence or not?
I don’t think this is a legal issue but United was right to terminate him. If Hilary were to fly on a United flight he flew, United would be in serious trouble if their pilot were to harm her in any way. Or even worse, he could intentionally do something unsafe to the airplane. That could get United in some very serious financial trouble just when their product is starting to improve. I don’t think this is as much a legal question as it is an “is this the right thing to do?” question.
HRC is going to be the next POTUS, and some are just going to have to get used to it…..rant on Twitter all you want:)
Matthew, its not that it isn’t an interesting legal issue, but its probably fairly open-and-shut depending on UA’s social media policy. Most companies have fairly aggressive social media policies that cover even personal statements that aren’t made in one’s capacity as an employee. Basically, if there’s anything to connect you to your employer on whichever social media platform you are using (like if your Facebook profile says that you work for said company), most companies are entitled to terminate your employment for stuff you say. I imagine that UA’s social media policies are on the more aggressive side.