ACLU Management Allegedly Instructed Staffers Not to Discuss ULP Case
Such an instruction is itself an unfair labor practice.
On March 27, 2024, I received an email from an ACLU staffer about a meeting that had taken place earlier that day. According to the staffer, during the meeting, ACLU’s second-in-command AJ Hikes commented on the ongoing NLRB proceeding in which former employee Kate Oh alleges that she was fired for criticizing supervisors. In that proceeding, the ACLU has variously argued that General Counsel Abruzzo was unconstitutionally appointed, that the NLRB should expand its arbitration deferral policy to cover individual arbitration agreements, and that criticizing black supervisors, in and of itself, creates some sort of racially hostile work environment that removes the criticism from the NLRA’s protections.
These positions have attracted significant criticisms, including from myself, because, if they were successful, they would radically reduce the rights workers currently enjoy under the NLRA. The ACLU appears to have felt the heat from some of this criticism and has responded by sending many emails to journalists and donors trying to justify its actions.
During this March 27 meeting, Hikes allegedly stated that Ms. Oh engaged in anti-black bias and that the ACLU management is not interested in hearing back-and-forth about the ULP case, especially from people who are not black.
On that same day, after I received the email, the union representing ACLU staffers filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that ACLU management violated Section 8(a)(1) by making coercive statements and promulgating coercive rules.
I sent an email to the ACLU communications department asking them whether it was true that Hikes had said what was alleged and they did not confirm nor deny it. Instead, an ACLU spokesperson offered the following comment: “Free speech thrives at the ACLU. We unequivocally support our staff members' rights to join and support labor unions, speak freely, and welcome their critical input about the organization.”
If Hikes did say this, then this would violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Workers have a right to talk to one another and to management about the unlawful termination of their colleague. The second-in-command at the ACLU stating that they are not interested in hearing back-and-forth about the case has a “reasonable tendency to coerce employees” in the exercise of this right (KSM Industries) as a reasonable employee would think that continued discussion of the issue could result in discipline or termination.
Beyond the illegality of this alleged statement, this whole series of events seems to indicate an organization that is cracking up, at least at the managerial level. Despite efforts to isolate Ms. Oh and tar her as a racist, difficult, or annoying employee, it’s clear enough that her union supports her and that other ACLU staffers are upset enough with the ACLU management, and Hikes in particular, to leak information about how the ACLU is internally managing dissent about Ms. Oh’s case.
One has to wonder how long they intend to keep this up.
So who's going to note that it's also illegal under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to single out employees by their race or ethnicity for coercive rules? Does the current ACLU management ever take a look at their own website?
It's also interesting the ACLU just accepted the black managers' baseless accusations they were being discriminated against by their Asian subordinate, as opposed to looking at it as black managers discriminating against the Asian worker or the black male manager intimidating the female subordinate. The discovery for this case will be interesting.
Are there situations where you CAN fire an employee for criticizing their boss? E.g. if she had said something clearly racist like “I cannot work for a black man” etc. is that protected?