You know, forced resignation is a legally recognized construct. I don't pretend to have any idea what actually happened behind the scenes here, but given the circumstances I can't blindly take his resignation at face value.
Speaking purely hypothetically, there are three possibilities:
1. I resigned without negotiating a constructive separation.
2. I resigned but with a constructive separation leveraged by legal and other (e.g., public relations) risks inherent in (1) and (3), but about which I cannot talk.
3. I was fired under color of resignation, but I for some reason did not pursue legal action under CA Labor Law (1101,1102).
Hope this helps! Probably not, but it should put a stake through any false dilemma (binary exclusive/exhaustive choice).
I'm well aware this is a completely public forum, yet I can't help but feel a bit as though the boss showed up to the water cooler while we were talking about him. I'd like to clarify that my comment wasn't intended to draw things off topic and towards your case specifically, but rather to express my general frustration with what I felt was being implied. I find the idea of presenting something as a counterexample without any consideration of the context to be rather objectionable, particularly when it comes to political topics.
To respond to the content of your post, while your list does cover the legal aspect, it doesn't address the broader topic of whether or not someone can be effectively fired for political activity (though I do appreciate that you in particular might not be legally permitted to address that topic given the current context). Unfortunately, when it comes to contentious topics the appearance at least is that people can often be forced out in one way or another regardless of what the law might say.
Regarding your item 3, and in relation to the broader topic of this thread, in the general case (not you specifically) it would not surprise me at all if someone failed to pursue legal action after being fired (or effectively fired) for political activity. Reasons that immediately come to mind include:
1. Legal action is generally quite expensive in this country.
3. If the political view is even remotely unpopular, the risk of being run through the media may be unacceptable. Consider not just the general aversion most people have to public exposure, but also the impact on future job searches and other similar things.
As a practical example of your average person not wanting to deal with public exposure and controversy, consider the proportion of people who post to this very website under pseudonyms (myself included). Even if you only tally those who keep their posts professional 100% of the time, it's still most of them.
Ok, wow, those really don't seem to leave any room for "creative" interpretations. Thanks for the links! I'm impressed - all too often protections get watered down when being passed into law. I particularly like the inclusion of "or tending to control or direct" in CA 1101.
That being said, my point 2 was that regardless of the strength of protections provided you still have to demonstrate intent (or for CA 1101 "tendency" I suppose) in court. No idea how high that bar is in CA, but regardless, depending on circumstances that really could be very challenging.
I do have to wonder how employers are going to reconcile this with our increasingly connected, reactionary, and polarized culture going forward. Use of social media alone presumably qualifies as "engaging or participating in politics" at this point, so what happens if, for example, a CA employee starts publicly shitposting about a political topic, someone figures out where they work, and things escalate? Your case and Mr. Kaplan's would seem to be only the tip of the iceberg...
Quick note to agree that CA 1101 and 1102 are impressive. They date from 1937. They protect everyone, and were used in a well-known case "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washi...). They are exceptional as you note, in being relatively clearly written. Bring back the 1930s era legal standards!
Kaplan won't be fired, I'm sure: connected friend of Zuck, at FB pre-IPO, VP of global policy. James Damore is a better case, and CA 1101 & 1102 are in fact cited in that amended lawsuit: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/201804....
Contingency fee plus colorable claim often means settlement way before hearing or trial, with non-disclosure clause to keep secrets after. Hard to know how often this happens. Businesses generally strive to de-escalate whenever possible.
