Dive Brief:
- An openly gay, conservative Christian lawyer sued Lucid Software May 22 for allegedly firing him due to his religious beliefs and because he didn’t conform to its stereotyped expectations of gay men, after he posted comments on X critical of transgender policies.
- Per the complaint in Maragani v. Lucid Software, Inc., the company partners with Equality Utah, a nonprofit organization advocating for LGBTQ+ legislation. The lawyer alleged that based on his sincerely-held views as a Christian, and outside of and separate from work, he posted comments on X critical of Equality Utah’s support for biological men using female locker rooms and gender transition for children, among other issues.
- A board member of Equality Utah allegedly complained to Lucid about the posts, leading Lucid to warn the lawyer that they violated its social media policy and were contrary to its commitment to DEI. He was also told he could be terminated if the posts continued, according to the complaint. He was later fired for “poor performance,” the lawsuit alleged.
Dive Insight:
Following his termination, the lawyer sued Lucid for allegedly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against him because of his sex, sexual orientation and religious views.
He alleged that when he met with a senior HR exec to discuss the posts, she told him she thought it was confusing that he would not work with Equality Utah, given that he was a gay man.
In an email to HR Dive, a representative for Lucid stated that the plaintiff “was terminated for performance-related issues.”
The lawsuit spotlights one of the trickier issues employers may face in the current political environment: How do they handle an employee’s off-work, online post that advocates a potentially controversial political view based on the employee’s sincerely-held religious beliefs?
At the outset, while people rightly view political speech as protected by the First Amendment, it generally doesn’t apply to private workplaces, a Gunster attorney noted in an April 2024 op-ed to HR Dive.
Also, political speech is not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws, the attorney pointed out.
However, some state and local laws may still prohibit employers from taking action based on an employee’s political involvement, she said.
In this case, the plaintiff pointed to Utah’s Antidiscrimination Act, which prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees “for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace,” with regard to the employee’s religious, political or personal convictions, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiff alleged that he told his supervisor and an HR leader that their demands may violate the statute, but that he was later retaliated against for doing so.
When developing a social media policy, aim for it to be tangible and well-outlined, an attorney previously told HR Dive. Social media policies should also be practically effective and legally sound — employers are generally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion and national origin, the attorney added.
Before taking action against an employee based on a social media policy, employers should consider the context in which the statement was made and balance protecting their business interests against allowing employee autonomy, the same attorney suggested, adding that social media policies may ask workers who are making controversial statements to note they’re speaking on behalf of themselves and not their employer.