Madison and Shea work for LED Advertising, a regional advertising and marketing firm. They are account representatives who both joined the firm two years ago after completing their MBAs. When they were hired, each woman signed LED’s standard employment-at-will statement.
Madison recently published several Facebook posts, complaining about the LED’s highly pressured work environment, which often required employees to work late into the evenings and on most weekends and holidays. She voiced particular concern about Gabe, Madison and Shea’s supervisor, and how he treated young women in the firm. Madison voiced her anger and disgust regarding a specific instance in which Gabe “hit” on her during a recent work-related road trip. In one of her posts, she wrote, “I don’t know what I would do without Facebook, cuz there’s nowhere else where I can vent my feelings about Gabe and LED.”
Shea “liked” Madison’s Facebook posts, and posted several replies in which she made fun of LED’s senior management team; she used vulgar memes and nicknames to belittle specific members of the team. Shea also made several sarcastic comments about LED’s upcoming advertising campaign proposal for a Fortune-500 company and invited her coworkers to join her in dissing the company.
LED’s management team learned of Madison and Shea’s Facebook posts after a local newspaper wrote a front-page article LED’s working conditions and senior managers. After consulting with Gabe and the firm’s outside legal counsel, the head of HR summarily terminated Madison and Shea’s employment with LED on the grounds that they had violated the firm’s social media and confidentiality policies.
Madison and Shea filed wrongful discharge cases against LED. The cases eventually made their way to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which overturned Madison’s firing and upheld Shea’s firing.
Discuss the NLRB’s rationale for its decisions in Madison and Shea’s cases, with particular emphasis on the employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions.