Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—N.D. Cal.: Employee fired after pro-Palestine posts survives summary judgment on several claims, (Oct 10, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

The court rejected the employer’s contention the California Labor Code impliedly does not protect “offensive” political conduct.

A California federal district court denied in part a microchip company’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a Muslim employee who was fired after posting on social media in support of Palestine. The court denied the employer’s motion regarding the employee’s California Labor Code and common law claims, determining the employee had presented evidence that the employer engaged in viewpoint discrimination and its social media policy wrongfully regulated political conduct. It rejected the employer’s contention the California Labor Code impliedly does not protect “offensive” political conduct. The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s CFEHA claim, however, finding no causal link between the employee’s correspondence with the CEO and his termination (Koraitem v. Microchip Technology, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00462-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2025)).

Social media posts. Beginning in 2016, the employee worked for the microchip company as a Senior Manager of the Application’s Engineering Group. The morning of October 7, 2023, the manager posted on social media calling it a “big day” and in the following days posted a historical regional map from the 1940s showing former Palestinian territory, condolences for deceased Palestinian children, and a picture of a teenager blindfolded and held in Israeli military custody. A human resources officer interpreted these posts as the manager, who is Muslim, “supporting or transmitting he is with the Palestinian people.”

Was told to remove them. On October 8, the company’s CEO sent a company-wide email calling Israel’s bombing of Palestine “justified and necessary,” but on October 10, sent an email expressing sympathy for civilians killed on both sides. The manager responded to the CEO’s second email “expressing gratitude” and forwarded his response to his supervisor. On October 10, the employer received complaints from several employees located in Israel who were “afraid of” or made “uncomfortable” by the manager’s social media activity. The manager’s supervisor told him to delete all “inappropriate/questionable content related to the recent Middle East conflict,” and the manger complied and removed all posts that day.

Nevertheless, on October 12 the Vice President of Global Human Resources deemed the manager’s posts too “political” and terminated his employment. The employer had in place a social media policy that prohibited “conduct that adversely affects job performance or employees” and activity that subjects the employer “to the risk of having to legally defend any claim by a third party.” On October 20, the employer revised its social media policy to include a section titled “Social Media Activities Can Impact Employment,” which discouraged managers from posting on “publicly accessible social media accounts.”

The manager brought this case in the Northern District of California, alleging his termination violates the California Labor Code and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and that it constitutes wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California common law.

California Labor Code. The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment regarding those claims under sections 1101, 1102, and 98.6 of the California Labor Code.

Sections 1101, 1102. The California Labor Code prevents employers from controlling/directing employee’s political activities (§ 1101) and from “from coercing or influencing employees, through threat of discharge or loss of employment, to follow or refrain from following any course of political action or activity” (§ 1102). The employer stated the manager does not have a claim because (1) the Code does not protect “offensive” conduct; (2) the employer’s social media policy does not control or direct employee’s political activities; (3) the employer has not engaged in viewpoint discrimination.

“Offensive” political conduct. The employer argued “offensive” political conduct is not protected because there is an implied exception in the Labor Code. Absent such an exception, the employer argued, employers would face “absurd consequences,” including Title VII hostile work environment claims. The court declined to read this exception into the law. The employer offered no basis for this exception, nor evidence that, without it, employers would be exposed to Title VII liability. Instead, the court referenced California and federal courts’ history of protecting employee’s political speech “even when that generates workplace complaints or discomfort.”

Even if the Code carved out an exception, the court explained, it was not convinced it would apply to the manager’s posts. The employer did not define “offensive” conduct, but the court inferred the definition would mirror the elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim. To plead hostile work environment, an employee must show a reasonable person in the same/similar situation would find the conduct “objectively hostile.” The employer argued a reasonable person in the same/similar situation as its Israeli employees would find the manager’s posts “objectively hostile.” When a defendant moves for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and here the court determined “a reasonable person could perceive [four] posts as political advocacy for Palestinian rights rather than support for terrorist violence.” The court concluded there was at least enough of a dispute of fact that summary judgment would be inappropriate.

Employer’s social media policy. The issue was whether the employer’s social media policy “controlled and directed” the manager’s posts regarding Israel’s attacks on Palestine. The employer asserted § 1101 was not implicated because the manager’s posts are not “political in nature.” The court disagreed, citing a slew of recent holdings defining social media commentary as political activity under California and constitutional law. The court also noted employees, including the Vice President of Global Human Resources, referred to the posts as “political” in internal discussions. Based on these facts, the court was persuaded a reasonable jury could find the employer’s social media policy restricted the manager’s political activity in violation of California Labor Code § 1101.

Viewpoint discrimination. The employer argued it cannot be liable under § 1102 because it did not fire the manager based on a political motive. (The employer claims it fired the manager because the posts “reflect poor judgment and lack of leadership qualities”). The manager, however, proffered evidence strongly suggesting his termination was politically motivated. A human resources officer emailed the Vice President of Global Human Resources, stating “It’s clear in my opinion that he is Muslim, I searched also and he has many post [sic] supporting or transmitting he is with the Palestinian people.” The Vice President publicly expressed support for Israel bombing Palestine, which the court found, when taken together with the CEO’s email, referenced above, suggested “executive leadership also promoted their own contrary political views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

Section 98.6. This section is an “enforcement mechanism for violations of sections §§ 1101 and 1102,” which bars an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee for engaging in political conduct. The employer’s § 98.6 claim was largely based on the same “offensive in nature” arguments as its §§ 1101 and 1102 claim and the court rejected them for the same reasons. The employer raised the additional claim that § 98.6 affords less protection to managers, which the court dismissed as the “distinction is not found anywhere in code or cited case law.” Lastly, the employer likened the instant case to Okonowsky v. Garland (2024), in which the Ninth Circuit held social media posts that can be viewed in perpetuity are “discriminatory or intimidating conduct [that] occurs wholly offsite [but] remains relevant to the extent it affects the employee's working environment.” The court rejected the comparison because the facts in Okonowsky, which involved a Title VII workplace sexual harassment claim, were too dissimilar to be relevant.

Retaliation. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the manager’s claim he was fired in retaliation for his October 10 email to the CEO. A plaintiff has met the necessary elements of a FEHA retaliation claim he shows (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he was discharged; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and his discharge. Here, the employer said the manager’s email to the CEO was not a protected activity because it did not “complain about discrimination the workplace.” The manager’s October 8 email spoke to the “value of human lives regardless of race and religion” and the “dehumanization” of Gazans. The court was not satisfied this email communicated a complaint and “no indicia” of workplace discrimination is referenced in the email.

Wrongful termination. A plaintiff can only state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy if he shows his termination violated a fundamental public policy embodied in federal or state law. The employer’s only response to this claim was the manager could not show a violation of federal or state law. Because the court found the manager plausibly alleged a violation of the California Labor Code, for the same reasons, it denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

The case is No. 5:24-cv-00462-EJD.

Judge: Davil, E.

Attorneys: Zak Franklin (Franklin Law) for Kamal Koraitem. Kyle Richard Broadfoot (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for Microchip Technology, Inc.

Companies: Microchip Technology, Inc.

Cases: StateLawClaims TortClaims Discharge Retaliation Discrimination IndividualRights CaliforniaNews