So,Can Keith Olberman Sue MSNBC?

[romantico]

Also, I forget the guys name who suspended him but doesn't Keith's boss have to answer to anyone? Isn't this OBVIOUS its personal and business? MSNBC is gonna take a hit from all of this. DO they have shareholders? Sponsors? I would think this could really screw Keith's boss in the long run. Thoughts?

[stray cat]

1. Not if its forbidden in the contract that Keith signed

[madmax]

12. Has that been stated by Contract Law specialists?

No snark, just askin. Some briliant Legal Beagal may find a way to challenge that contract. A lot of 'contracts' are not iron clad or carved in stone.

[Tx4obama]

2. I hope he take it to SCOTUS. What prevents ANY employer from banning employees from donating....

to political campaigns.
What will be next?
Wal-Mart could say that employees can not donate - without their 'approval'?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. There's the problem -- he wasn't prohibited from donating.

Under his contract, he was only required to disclose his donations. And yes, they can do that. A private employer can impose restrictions on its employees under whatever contract they agree to; the Constitution controls only the actions of the government. I don't think KO would get very far if he tried to litigate this -- unless, maybe, if other employers working under the same policies were not punished for failing to disclose political contributions.

[Tx4obama]

15. I disagree.

The contract said: '... should disclose and ASK for approval ... "
Employers should not have the right to approve or disapprove of a person's 'right' to donate to a candidate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. They shouldn't, but unfortunately they do.

[RKP5637]

3. It seems to me more than a little weird in a supposed democracy to have to

get permission in a corp. to make a political donation. To me it's akin to a corporation telling employees how they must vote to retain their jobs and to (somehow) bring proof of how you voted and show it to your boss. This just smells bad.

I've worked in many corporations that would have loved to have told employees exactly where their political donations must go, and it was not to democrats.

In KO's case I have a feeling it's contractual. Even if so, it still smells bad to me.

[napi21]

4. HE can if he never wants to work for any network again! nt

[gratuitous]

5. Sorry Comrade, you're thinking of Yurp

Here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, employees don't have "rights," certainly not against their benevolent employers.

[HughMoran]

6. iz fired yet?

[Raine]

8. Depends on if he violated the terms of his contract nt

edit:typo

[xloadiex]

9. Was this the best time

to do this to Olbermann considering this is sweeps month or could this be part of the reason it was done now? MSNBC is sure to have a ratings bonanza if/when they bring Keith back.

[Chatt]

10. I think not, unfortunately

Because a clause in the contract forbade donations, as someone mentioned previously.

[romantico]

11. I

I think it was a dumb business move on Keith's bosses part. They could have punished him without making it public or just given him a verbal warning. I think the idea was to humiliate him. This could have been handled differently.

[madmax]

13. Hell the Supremes found a way to stop counting the

votes in 2000. I'm thinking if there is even the slightest chance of an obscure point to contest that someone will take the case.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[bluedigger]

14. Doubt it.

But if they fire him, he can probably draw unemployment.

So he's got that going for him...