Chili's Waitress Fired Over Facebook Post Insulting 'Stupid Cops'

[damnedifIknow]

"If you're a teacher, and want to keep your job, don't mock your students on Facebook. If your boss is a Jewish community leader, and you want to keep your job, don't post photos on Facebook of yourself covered in swastikas. And if you're anyone who wants to keep your job, don't go on Facebook and insult a police officer.


A waitress at an Oklahoma City Chili's made that error, when she posted a photo of three Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputies on her Facebook page along with the comment: "Stupid Cops better hope I'm not their server FDP." (A handy abbreviation for F*** Da Police.)

The woman, Ashley Warden, might have had reason to hold a grudge against her local police force. Last year she made national news when her potty-training toddler pulled down his pants in his grandmother's front yard, and a passing officer handed Warden a public urination ticket for $2,500. (The police chief later apologized and dropped the charges, while the ticketing officer was fired.)

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/05/16/chilis-waitress-fired-facebook-post/

[Nye Bevan]

1. So, she made a post suggesting that she would contaminate an order from a cop.

Firing her was completely appropriate.

[Wait Wut]

4. Yep.

That's what I read. She should be banned from the food service industry.

[DrDan]

28. absolutely appropriate - that kind of threat should be dealt with by an employer

[petronius]

35. Yep. I'd expect the same response whether it was aimed at cops, nuns, frat boys,

AYSO soccer teams, airline pilots, foreign tourists, whatever...

[Occulus]

41. No, she did not do anything of the kind.

She said they'd better hope she's not their server.

Contamination was never implied. You added that.

[dballance]

51. Oh, Please. I believe most regular people would read it as a threat to mess with their food.

That's the way I read it. Just like Nye B. did.

It sure did't sound like she was planning on taking extra special care of them and maybe slipping them some extra fries.

[Occulus]

79. She didn't say anything specific about food, either. Not one word.

You're only adding those things because you want to find in her actions the most fault possible, so you can justify her receiving the most extreme punishment possible, just like Nye does.

So, fail.

[dballance]

88. Well Yes. You're right. I do want to find the most fault possible. Therein lies the rube & UR FAIL.

Let's talk about the least possible fault. Say I am the manager and I slap her on the wrist and let her go her way. All she does is give the police poor service. Is slow to take their orders, lets their food get cold before she serves it. Then I'm a bad manger because now I have the risk of the police officers telling other officers that my Chilli's stinks. The service is slow, the food always comes out cold. Possibly, that the wait staff is snarly. I lose business. I also loose the additional benefit of having uniformed officers in my establishment which can provide an extra level of security. So then, as a result of profits being lost I have to cut back on staff. By this time, surely I've gotten complaints about this particular person from the officers. So who should I cut first?

If I were the manager of the Chili's and I slapped her on the wrist for this then let her go her way and she did taint some police officers' food - we'll call that the "most fault possible" - then I would be a bad manager and the restaurant would probably become legally liable for negligence. Then, not only has this person lost their job and become a felon; I, as a manager, would have put at risk the lives of police officers, my own job and perhaps the jobs of that entire Chilli's location if the event were serious enough. Weigh that risk against the risk of legally terminating one employee for being insubordinate about customers.

Tell me what your math comes out to between the two risk extremes? And don't tell me that we, in the US, don't manage our lives to prevent the highest risk extreme. If you've gone to the airport and taken your shoes off because one man out of millions of air passengers tried to blow up an airplane with a shoe bomb you're living with, and consenting to, management to prevent the highest risk extreme.

What's the risk of this person tainting cop's food? That they weren't just spouting off? You don't know. I don't know. Nye doesn't know. The manager, having worked with her, may have a better idea of how to ascertain such risk for that particular individual doing something nefarious. Perhaps he did that in his decision whether or not to fire her.

Times are not like when I grew up and when things were simpler. When we didn't have kids urinating in the coffee pot in the teachers' lounge and LEO's being fed marijuana-laced brownies. We didn't have kids killing their parents because they wouldn't let them use the internet after 10pm or play video games all night long. We didn't have people talking about threats to others on, the as yet to be invented, social media and then being arrested to find they have a basement or garage with enough explosives and weapons to arm a small country.

Of course, the majority of the spouting off in social media is just that - spouting off and blowing off steam. Nothing behind it. I know that. The lesson here has been around for a very, very long time though. Say what you want - but don't put it in writing unless you want to take the risk of it falling into the hands of unintended audiences and the consequences to which that might lead.

So no, I did not fail at all. I found exactly what I wanted in her actions and the repercussions she suffered. I weighed the risks and found the repercussions to be appropriate given the possible harm of the most fault situation.

For goodness sakes, please don't respond with something like "Well you're just making up hypothetical situations that might never happen" as a refutation to this post. Yes, I am just making up hypothetical situations that might never happen. Since humans and business are rarely clear about what's going to happen in the future hypotheticals are all one has to deal with. That, and hopefully some applicable history.

[Orrex]

68. She indicated that their dining experience would be deliberately unsatisfactory

An employer in the food service industry has a vested interest in striving for customer satisfaction; by stating that customers have a reason not to want to have her serve them, the former waitress has actively and publicly undermined the company.

Chili's was right to fire her, no matter how crappy their menu might be.

[Occulus]

80. No, she didn't do that, either

She could have intended to be 100% sweetness and light to the very people she'd smacked around in court. Got one of them fired, even.

Yes, they better hope they don't get her as a server. It would be bitter, bitter pills to take if she did her job perfectly, unlike them. Gosh- that would make for a deliberately unsatisfactory experience, come to think of it.

See? I can throw around speculation, too. You aren't a mind reader and can't know she intended what you think or wish she'd intended, and all the speculation in the world does not make for her actual intent. Only she knows.

But she didn't say.

[Orrex]

85. I doubt that any reasonable person would interpret it as you claim

Are there many examples of people using such phrases ("Stupid Cops better hope I'm not their server FDP.&quot to mean that they will provide exemplary service? In my life I have never heard of even one, and if someone were to threaten me with such language then there's no way that I could misinterpret it as a promise of sweetness. But I invite you to recount the many examples from your own rose-colored history wherein threats of this kind foretell an A+ customer service experience.

It was reasonable for Chili's to construe her statement as a threat of deliberately poor service, and when she files for unemployment insurance and the matter goes to arbitration, she is free to make the claim that you have made. I would be amazed if she convinces anyone of the cockamamie tale you've spun.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. Absolutely.

She's a server (or was a server) and not the cook.

Some servers deliver slow service.

Or do nothing more than deliver slow service and scowl at customers that they don't like.

[Major Nikon]

92. Seems a bit disingenuous

I'm sure one could dream up all sorts of scenarios, but a threat by a foodservice worker generally implies the adulteration of food. Even if you could imagine something else, it's still an implied threat to a potential customer which is a fireable offense pretty much everywhere on earth.

[MADem]

52. I read her comment as saying "I will provide these policemen with poor service."

Funny how people read different intentions into what people say--or don't say.

Either way, it was a dumb thing for her to put on the internet...but I didn't 'read' that she'd screw with their food by her comment.

[tblue]

54. I hope she wasn't fired for insulting cops

but for implying she'd do something rude or nasty if they were her customers. She's entiltled to say she doesn't like cops. Sounds like she has reason. But Chili's has the right to fire her for saying she'd treat any customer badly too.

[MADem]

55. I don't argue with the restaurant for firing her. You don't say "I will do a bad job when it comes

to providing service to 'x' people" and expect to remain employed.

Her comment is no different from a server saying "I won't work hard to serve that person because of (race/ethnicity/orientation)." She deserves to be terminated for that reason, alone. The "Fuck Da Police" at the end is icing on the cake--she is representing her employer badly with those kinds of comments.

I just think it's silly to leap from an "attitude" problem on the part of this worker, to a suggestion that she's a Borgia-like poisoner or a "food spitter" or what-have-you. Bridge too far for me.

[Deep13]

2. So to what degree can a boss regulate a person's personal opinions?

Granted, in this one, she specifically mentioned being the stupid cops' waitress, so it is arguably job related.

[oldhippie]

5. The boss did not regulate her opinion ......

He terminated her employment. She can still have any opinion she choses.

She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for a terroristic threat.

[Deep13]

8. That's the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Do you think the only way to limit free expression is by prosecution? I'm sure it was no big deal to be suddenly deprived of an income source. I'm sure her landlord, utility companies, possible children who want to eat understand. Her employer penalized her for expressing an opinion it didn't like.

Terroristic? Seriously? Why don't you smoke some refers and relax, Mr. Hippie. You voted for Nixon, didn't you?

[Honeycombe8]

10. Would you keep someone working in your deli if he said he'd do a criminal act there?

When serving someone? Implying he'd put something in a customer's food? Of course not. No one who saw that would go to your deli, and YOU'D be deprived of an income source. Not because YOU said something, but because your employee did.

I would've fired her immediately. I guess they watch facebook accounts of their employees? Interesting. Was she also so stupid as to use her real name on fb?

[Occulus]

42. The waitress never implied a criminal act, and never implied contamination

YOU are assuming that.

[PeaceNikki]

67. At minimum, she implied she wouldn't do her job. Which was really stupid on her part.

[tkmorris]

12. "Why don't you smoke some refers and relax, Mr. Hippie. You voted for Nixon, didn't you?"

What the fuckity fuck is this nonsense? Man I swear some people seem to think they can just post any old bullshit they want to, civility be damned.

[oldhippie]

30. Does she not still have ......

.... her opinion? You raise a number of irrelevant issues. Her opinion was not "regulated."

Nixon? Really?

[Th1onein]

76. "She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for a terroristic threat."

Get real. You gotta be kidding.

FDP!!

[oldhippie]

77. Yeah, I was ....

... kidding.

But I still think she deserved to be fired. Owner can't take the risk.

[Th1onein]

91. I have a little more respect for First Amendment Rights.....

She's not too bright, posting on Facebook, but it really bothers me that the cops went after her like this. Shows how petty they are. Of course, anyone who would give her a $2500 ticket for her toddler peeing on his own lawn is pretty petty to begin with.

I don't think, given the circumstances, that the manager at Chili's had any other recourse, however. If she were in my area, I'd look her up and offer her a job. I don't think much of the cops. Any of them.

[Initech]

3. The bad thing about Facebook is it gives a voice to people you wish would shut up.

[Pelican]

19. Yeah but it allows the stupid to expose themselves...

As seen here...

She deserved what she got.

[Inkfreak]

66. So very true, but...

It also provides me with way to share some of those awesome stories you post in Weird News.

Love those.

[CBGLuthier]

6. Oh, she was the potty training woman. No wonder she hated cops

Oh well she got one idiot cop fired so I guess now it is her turn.

[treestar]

73. The thing is, she was victim of one idiot cop

Then blames all cops for it. The scourge of humanity. We can't seem to assign individual acts to individuals. We have to pull in whatever groupings they belong to.

[bayareamike]

7. I think her firing was justified since this is job related

How many times does it have to be said? Be careful what you post online. Period.

A second cousin of mine, who recently was paroled from the CDC, posted incriminating pictures of him out of the state on Facebook (without telling his parole officer and thus violating the rules) and was promptly taken into custody for parole violation. THINK PEOPLE, THINK.

[davidpdx]

24. Very true, and there have been countless cases of this happening over the past 5 years or so

(I'm sure with a simple Google search you could find as many as a dozen such cases). Why don't people learn that saying things on Facebook or any form of social media could jeopardize your job or a potential job if you are a candidate. Many of them have been in the news. I've heard people say even if you are a perspective employee you should have two Facebook accounts, one personal that is hidden and one professional that has nothing on it you wouldn't want your employer to know.

Personally I don't like the fact that people snoop into your personal information, but if it's on social media it's out there for public consumption.

[alp227]

74. Even without social media,

can one's job be risked by other people telling the employer about things they've heard from the worker outside the job?

[davidpdx]

84. Well that would be secondhand knowledge

Stuff posted on social media would be firsthand since it would be coming from the person themselves. On secondhand knowledge I don't know, it would seem to me like it wouldn't, but then again I bet there have been instances where it has occurred.

[Honeycombe8]

9. She wasn't fired for statement re the officer. She was fired for saying she'd do something criminal

in the course of her duties. She should've been fired for that. That...or just because she's really stupid.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. She didn't mention any criminal act

She just said they better hope she's not their waitress. Which could just as easily mean that she would take her sweet time serving them.

[Honeycombe8]

13. It's inferred. Even if intentionally not doing her job properly...cause for termination. nt

[Occulus]

43. It is not inferred.

Define 'properly'.

[Honeycombe8]

75. Give it up, dude. You lost. Chick got fired, for cause. nt

[Occulus]

81. "Chick?"

[joeglow3]

18. She just said she would not do the job she was paid to do

Thus, you get fired. This is not rocket science, people.

[SoCalDem]

31. And now someone else gets a job

People really need to resist the urge to post everything that crosses their minds

Cops also do not appreciate having their pictures plastered online

It's probably against policy to photograph unwitting customers and post them online

[Art_from_Ark]

33. I agree that she showed a serious lapse in judgment

I just don't think that what she wrote, if that's all she wrote, necessarily constituted intent to commit a criminal act.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. It doesn't matter what she implied

She she made a THREAT and said straight out that certain customers of her employer she would treat badly for nothing more than a personal grudge and not for anything they did to her themselves but because of their chosen profession and in a manner that very easily could be construed as being something so bad as her spitting in their food or pissing in their drink. What would you think she meant by making that threat if it was you? Would you eat or drink anything she served you? Plenty reason enough to fire her ass. She's a damn biggot for hating all police officers because of something that ONE of them did to her and that was even remedied in her favor as well as it could possibly be, and she should be GRATEFUL that the chief recognized that what that one officer did was so reprehensible that he should lose his job.

There are plenty of good waitresses out there that are far more deserving of her job than she has shown herself to be. She has shown herself to be exactly the wrong type of worker for the job not just for the employer but all the customers of that employer as well as any other similar employer and their customers... who knows who she might decide to give intentional bad service to next because of a personal whim of hers? She'll never get another waitress job or any customer service job in that town, and she shouldn't since she exposed herself to be precisely the wrong sort of person for such a position. And she was so epically stupid as to do that to herself. How ironic that she did this to herself by calling others stupid and broadcast such idiocy to the whole world.

[Occulus]

82. What threat, exactly, did she make?

[TorchTheWitch]

90. she didn't say exactly, and that makes the threat WORSE

But there was no doubt whatsoever it was a threat. Any statement that starts out with "you/they better hope..." is a threat. There's no denying that. Frankly, her NOT explicitly stating what she would do leaves it up to the imagination of who she delivered the threat to as to what she intended, which could certainly be a lot worse than whatever it was that she was actually intending. Isn't that obvious considering so many people here made the assumption that she would somehow sabotage their food or drink in some way? She may have only been intending slow or belligerent service and may have even intended nothing at all, but by NOT saying what she would do the threat could easily be interpreted as far worse... as witnessed right here since many interpreted her statement to mean that she would sabotage their food or drink.

Statements that begin with "you better hope" are INTENDED to threaten someone specifically by NOT saying what their bad intentions are and leaving it up to the imagination of who it's delivered to so they need to worry about how bad the intention is, what it could be, and if it's a real threat or just a boast. People automatically assume the worst when threatened. Why would they not? A sense of self-preservation is ingrained in everyone, so we all consciously or unconsciously attempt to protect ourselves by assuming the worst and preparing for it. If someone said to you "you better hope I never come across you again" you would automatically assume the worst including the possibility of bodily harm or even death when the person who delivered the threat could very likely not really be intending any such thing and might actually have only said it as a boast. The point being you DON'T know what they really mean, and through an automatic sense of self-preservation would either consciously or unconsciously assume the worst in order to be prepared and thus protect yourself. The more you don't actually know the person delivering the threat the worse the imagination takes you since you have virtually nothing to go by to determine what the person means. Are they a sociopathic nut capable of anything? Have they done atrocious things to others they felt slighted by in the past? The more you don't know the person, the more you have to wonder - and WOULD wonder - what they might be capable of.

Seriously, if were a doctor and this woman had an irrational hatred of doctors and you saw her threatening message would you still want to toss the dice and eat at the establishment where she works wondering if you would get stuck with her as your server and what she might do to you? Would you feel comfortable eating or drinking anything she served you or wonder if she had spit in your food or drink or even worse? Of course you wouldn't. And who would? Who would cheerfully go out to eat at a restaurant where they knew there was a server they might get stuck with who had an irrational hatred of you and who threatened some unidentified consequences to you if you had the bad luck to have her as your server? Nobody would do that including you. You and anyone else would simply go somewhere else to enjoy a meal or a drink so they didn't have to worry about this irrational waitress that threatened unidentified consequences if she served you.

All that said why on EARTH would her employer NOT fire her? What employer would put up with an employee that threatened their customers or potential customers especially because of an irrational hatred of them and so publicly? Of COURSE she would get sacked, and of COURSE she deserved to be. There doesn't need to BE any explicit threat, and her not making it explicit makes people automatically assume the worst.

[burnodo]

64. ...giving her boss justification to fire her

nt

[MrSlayer]

14. Pretty bold to say you're going to poison some cops.

Oh, she didn't say that?

Bad move regardless.

[gollygee]

15. It was an implicit threat

You have to be careful with what you post online.

[NCTraveler]

16. Intelligence is not a requirement for a facebook account. nt.

[davidpdx]

22. Isn't that the truth!

[Arcanetrance]

17. As a chef who'd like to open his own place I feel really torn on thia

On one hand she has the right to her thought pattern. But her making references to my establishment and what she would do in it to a cop (despite my own personal thoughts on them as well) starts to put the credibility of what I'm serving at risk.

[Nye Bevan]

23. She strongly implied that she would spit in cops' food if she was their waitress,

and you are "torn"?

[Arcanetrance]

26. Because I hate that she lost her job and all that. It's a fight between the rebellious Fuck

the authority person I was. With the chef wanna be restaurateur.

[Occulus]

44. She did not strongly imply any such thing.

Read it again.

She said they'd better hope she wasn't their server.

That's it.

[Nye Bevan]

50. Most DUers in this thread interpreted that comment as suggesting she would adulterate cops' orders.

I guess that's how her boss interpreted it, too.

When you can be freely and legally fired for any reason at all (other than race, sex, religion or disability) it's a good idea not to say stuff about your job that can be interpreted in such a way.

[Occulus]

83. Maybe it would be better if that weren't possible.

To be fired for things said when not on company time and not on company property, I mean.

That line should be very broad and very bright. I can't understand why you think it acceptable to cross it.

[dballance]

53. You're Right. My first though was "Well she's going to mess with their food."

There are so many ways of doing that. I took a required course here in Portland, OR to get my server's license (anyone who serves alcohol has to take a 4-hour course). Well the long-time lady who taught the course even told us about a couple of ways to mess with the food that will take a while to show up so as not to arouse suspicion.

[burnodo]

65. She did no such thing.

The only thing she did was threaten to take some inappropriate action as their server if they were ever her customers.

[Nye Bevan]

69. Which is still a valid reason to fire her (nt)

[burnodo]

70. Not disputing that at all

But there's no link between them being police and her being fired.

[Seeking Serenity]

20. Facebook is NOT your diary!

And DO NOT use it as such!

Repeat over and over and over again until it finally sinks in.

(Not directed at the OP, just a statement of general application)

[bunnies]

21. +1000

Blows my mind what some idiots post on there.

[HappyMe]

25. She deserved to be fired.

I will never understand why people think that their FB crap is invisible or something.

[alphafemale]

61. Help I'm being oppressed!

[Poll_Blind]

27. Reason No. 1 I never signed up on Facebook or Myspace. nt

PB

[Quantess]

29. Her mistake was that she dragged her workplace into her comment.

She has a problem with cops on her own time, fine. But she has no right to take her own personal feelings out on customers. I sort of doubt she will ever understand that, which is why she deserved to get fired for that.

[Occulus]

45. Read it again.

The cops took what she said on facebook out on Chili's. Chili's response to the police ringing their phones off the hook was to fire her.

Once again, the pigs got their pound of flesh. Her termination was in response to her getting one of them fired after her toddler pulled his pants down in her yard while a cop drove by. His reaction was to issue a $2,500 ticket for public urination. She fought it, won, and got an apology from the chief, and the ticketing officer fired.

The fucking assholes calling themselves cops managed to find an understandably angry, but yes, slightly incriminating, Facebook post and blew it up into a conflagration of fury directed at her employer.

Gee golly gosh, it couldn't possibly be simple revenge for honestly taking out one of their own. Golly no. Gawrsh.

[Half-Century Man]

32. Couple a points

By her post; NOTHING was really said. "Stupid Cops better hope I'm not their server FDP", could mean anything or nothing. An empty threat without any consequence.

Since when are the police sacrosanct? Do people film them arresting other people because they sometimes emit a holy glow?

A urination ticket for $2500.00? Was this kid pissing run off from the nearby nuclear power plant?

That national fame she got the year before, I'd say that might qualify as a definition of "Stupid Cops".

[Occulus]

46. Another point- why do we accept that saying something in ANY place not on company property,

and not on company time, can be a terminable offense at all?

When, exactly, was that decided to be legal, and on what grounds?

How can we reverse it?

[DoctorObvious]

34. Logical outcome of a person's choice of behavior or comments.

There is a particular public trust and fiduciary duty that restaurants must maintain. Any restaurant worker who implies that a customer better beware puts the restaurant at risk of liability for personal injury. It is never proper to post such comments, no matter who you are or what has happened to you before. If the cops were reprimanded and her charges were dropped, she already got remedy. No need to post as she did. Her indignation is certainly understandable, but even food service professionals have people's lives in their hands. Restaurant workers are a reflection of their employer and the reputation of the establishment. The employer had limited options regarding her employment status. A chain like Chili's likely has an employee manual that describes codes of conduct, violating that code is violation of one's contractual duties to one's employer, resulting in grounds for termination. We are all free to speak our minds, but we must be mindful of the potential consequences of what we say.

[hrmjustin]

36. Welcome to DU my friend!

[DoctorObvious]

38. Looking forward to some nice conversations with interesting folks

[panader0]

37. Welcome to DU-- have fun.

[DoctorObvious]

40. Thanks!

I liked the common sense of the other members' posts; very nice to see!

[TorchTheWitch]

48. Exactly

This has nothing to do with whether her grudge was against cops or nuns or attorneys or birthday clowns or anyone else. She threatened potential customers with bad service or much worse, and of course her employer would take issue with that. It is her JOB to give good customer service to every single customer regardless about her bigoted opinions of them, and since she showed herself to be incapable of doing what is REQUIRED of her in a customer service position she deserves to be fired. There are plenty of out of work waitresses who wouldn't dream of giving bad service to anyone they had a bigoted dislike for or any customer they had a legitimate reason to have a beef with who are far more deserving of that job. This woman has proven herself to be unsuitable for any kind of customer service position and well deserved being fired.

And her indignation is NOT understandable. It's the very definition of bigotry. There is no legitimate reason to hate every police officer because of what ONE of them did to you. It's not at all reasonable particularly when that ONE officer was fired for what he did. NONE of the other officers on the force has done a damn thing to her, and they have a right to be upset that because of her bigotry against them due to what that ONE officer did that she would try to punish them for no reason in her capacity of a customer service worker.

[Ash_F]

39. Having worked in service, I don't think joking about sabotaging orders is ok.

Not commenting on whether it was right to fire her or not.

[Shankapotomus]

49. Saying that can indeed be bad for business nt

[defacto7]

56. The Internet!

The worlds new Super Nanny! You had better shape up or it's to time out for YOU! Your parents couldn't teach you how to behave, your school is no longer enabled to teach you how to be civil. Now it's The Internet Supper Nanny that will guide your moral, civil and social behavior.

Better get in line!

[Apophis]

57. These types of posts are really misleading.

She was fired for implying she'd contaminate customers' food, not because she said fuck da police.

[dballance]

58. It's called the "HOSPITALITY" Industry and she was hired as a SERVER. Not a critic or blogger.

She was hired to give good service to her customers. Not take out her unfortunate past experiences on them even if all she was going to do was let their food get cold in the window before serving it and not doing anything to taint it.

People are plain stupid if they think they actually have 1st, 4th or 5th amendments protections at a private company. The "Bill of Rights" was about declaring how the federal government (at time of adoption, but was later expanded to include states, localities, etc.) was limited in it's actions over the people. NOT how private entities like your employer, church, non-profit, etc. have to behave toward you.

You have no right to free speech, no right to not incriminate yourself, no right to prevent search of your locker/desk/company vehicle etc. at a private workplace under the Constitution. Those rights, if they exist where you work, have generally been granted under state and local laws. Hence the "right to work" states vs. the states that are not "right to work" states allow employers to generally fire a person for, as my business law professor said, "Good reason, bad reason, no reason - as long as it's not a protected reason (i.e. race, religion, gender)."

On closing, I can't believe after the Applebee's/minister incident that any person working in the hospitality industry would post something critical of a customer online. Texting it isn't safe either. Just like embarrassing photos, once the content has left your device and is on anybody else's device or server you have no control over where it's going to end up. Recall, the Applebee's server didn't post the snarky receipt from the minister - her friend did.

[JI7]

59. i was prepared to take her side, but she deserved to get fired and i feel no sympathy for her

[alphafemale]

60. Try this simple substitution game. "Nig_ers better hope I'm not their server. Fuck Nig_ers."

Get it now? Does that clarify it for anyone?

Damn right she should have been fired.

[Cronus Protagonist]

62. FaceBook is a self-incrimination service

I've used it in the past, but when they made it so that you have to give them real verification of your identity, I passed on it. So many people are in jail or lost their jobs for postings made on the FaceBook. And it's not just the self-incrimination factor; I was attacked by a gang of thieves who operate via FaceBook. I won't get into the details because I don't want to hand out a play book to another crop of neerdowells, but suffice it to say, FaceBook is evil.

My advice to all FaceBook users is to get off it immediately. If your family convos are too important to you for you to quit FaceBook, make sure you have everything set to private and ONLY include your family as friends. Do NOT "friend" anyone who you don't already know intimately, but ultimately, even that will not protect you, so I do repeat my advice. Get off FaceBook immediately. It does not serve you well.

[etherealtruth]

89. I agree

I do use FB .... but solely to keep track of my children, nieces, nephews and the numerous babies of friends and family. Everything (albeit, all benign is PRIVATE).

I have no doubt even my minimal use puts me at some risk.

I wish I could make my youngest understand the true dangers associated with FB

[Raine]

63. It seems like she wasn't fired for calling cops "stupid" but for threatening to do something

to their food. I can certainly see why her boss wouldn't want her serving food any longer!

[etherealtruth]

71. I honestly wanted to be outraged by her firing

After reading the story I came to the conclusion I would have fired her. Implied in her post was the idea that she would do something inappropriate if she were their server. (Inappropriate could simply mean purposely giving terrible service).

If I had an employee publicly threatening to do their job poorly for clients or customers I would fire them (they would be a liability to the business) ... I do not often side with business.

[Orrex]

86. I just read upthread that she might have implied a promise of super-duper service

So you and I (and Chili's and just about everyone else) are apparently reading her intent all wrong.

[etherealtruth]

87. In an alternate universe all is possible

However, here on earth a reasonable person would interpret her post as an implied threat (threat of what specifically, I don't know .... but, super duper service isn't one of the threats implied)

[datasuspect]

72. fuck da police

[geomon666]

93. I have no problem with the actions of the restaurant

I mean really, how many times must the lesson be taught before it is learned. Public statements have consequences.