"TikTok Got Me Fired": Woman Is Shocked To Be Fired From Her Tech Job Because She Talked About Her Salary On TikTok
The tech industry is infamous for being shrouded in secrets. Non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality forms seem to be handed out by tech companies like candy, but how far are they legally allowed to go with limiting their employees’ speech? One woman in Denver, Colorado, who recently landed a new job in the tech industry received a rude awakening when she learned that even sharing her salary online could ruffle a few feathers.
TikToker Lexi Larson shared a video earlier this week explaining how her online presence got her fired from her new job. Below, you can hear the full story from Lexi and read some of the responses her video has received. Let us know in the comments if you think her employer had any justification for dismissing her, and then if you’re looking to read another Bored Panda piece touching on salary transparency, check out this story next.
After only two weeks at her new tech job, TikToker Lexi Larson posted a video detailing how she was fired for sharing content online
Image credits: itslexilarson
Lexi explained that she never violated any company policies, but her employer was upset about her salary information being online and considered her TikTok a “security concern”
You can hear Lexi tell the story right here
@itslexilarson I got fired bc of my tiktok 🙂 #igotfired #techtok ♬ original sound – Lexi Larson
We have all been warned about the implications of posting too much information on the internet. It stays out there forever, everything can be screenshotted, and we might regret sharing anything too personal. But companies almost always have policies in place designating specifically what cannot be posted, so employees do not have to play a guessing game about what they are allowed to reveal. Having defined parameters makes everyone’s life easier. In this case, Lexi explained that she asked her employers if she had broken any policies or posted anything that was a security concern, and they responded that she had not. Fear that an employee might violate a policy sometime in the hypothetical future is not a valid reason to terminate their contract.
@itslexilarsonLol♬ original sound – You’re mine now heheheheh😩😩
Furthermore, Lexi noted that sharing her salary online was one of the main reasons her employer was upset. However, in the United States, individuals have the right to openly discuss their wages, at work and in other places, without being retaliated against by their employers. This right is protected by the National Labor Relations Act, and even notes that when it comes to communications like social media, employers enacting “policies that specifically prohibit the discussion of wages are unlawful”.
In a follow-up video, Lexi said that she has no plans to seek legal action against the company, but many commenters said that if she wanted to sue, she might have a case. Even if this is the end of Lexi’s saga with that company, hopefully she has opened their eyes by posting about how they wrongfully treated her. Companies should not be allowed to get away with firing employees for having social media accounts, so hopefully this discussion will help prevent future unjust terminations. Let us know in the comments how you feel about this situation or if you have ever been in a similar situation with your employer.
Commenters have responded with outrage for the situation, telling Lexi that her termination was unfair and that she should consult a lawyer
I finally got a unionized job. Everyone knew what everyone else made, or could look it up easily. This situation she describes is load of bollocks. Sounds like "rules" by the rich for the rich.. When are people going to wake up. You will never be one of them no matter how much they try to convince you to just work harder and save and invest.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Unions and attitudes like this are why so many companies have moved out of the US. Americans are so entitled.
Collective bargaining is the only way we have gotten the rights we have. For you to simplify manufacturing going overseas shows how little you know.
You are 100% wrong. And if you don't know you are wrong, then you are intentionally choosing to believe bad information. Even worse, you are trying to spread it. I dare you to find factual information sources and use them. Until then do the world a favor and STFU. And let me ask you one more thing that is based on your bad information. If paying people a livable wage and providing decent working conditions (which is the main benefit of having a union) is what sends a company's manufacturing overseas, do you think that company should even be in business? Because by underpaying their staff, that business is not contributing to the US economy. It is taking from it. They are giving people the income to buy good from other companies, especially those that are doing their part in contributing. That puts the US in control of foreign business. So you are basically supporting the undermining of the US. It's people like you that are the biggest threat to the security of the US.
A company can fire someone in their probationary period for no reason. She said she had only worked there for 2 weeks so they didn't need a reason to fire her.
But they did give her a reason. And that is an unlawful firing. Even if there for half a day.
Not only did they give her a reason (an illegal one at that), their reasoning dictates that they should be firing anyone with any social media account.
Maybe they should just fire everybody, since anyone of them could set up and start posting on a social media account in just minutes, at any point in time.
I’ve only had one job that had a probationary period. My job in a Fortunate 500 did not. She didn’t say she was in a probationary period. If she didn’t immediately have a job offer, she could have applied for unemployment and let tge compay explain to the state that they let her ho for exercising her federal rights.
Y’all seem to be confused on how at will works. She can still have a case before her state’s labor board regardless of the state being at will or not. The employer will still have to respond to a wrongful termination claim and she can clearly link her termination to what she stated and their assumption that she could potentially share confidential information. The employer’s response would need to include specifics regarding her termination, i.e. any written documentation, meeting logs, etc. Regardless of a state being at will or not, employers still have to follow state and federal labor laws that at will does not make them exempt from. Employers like to use the at will term to discourage employees from filing claims with the labor board.
That makes sense. If I were her, I’d complain just so they don’t try to do this with someone else, because everyone has social media in this day and age. Meaning everyone can potentially be a data leak.
She doedn't seem very smart. I mean, she says "I singed off some documents, so i'm not sure if i can talk about that". Maybe, just maybe, in her first contract there was a clause who forbids her to share that kind of information. And now she singed god knows what...
Contracts can be vague
Actually they would not need to state a reason in an at will jurisdiction. Only she is drawing the connection to the post. The company already said it was not because of that. The company has an army of lawyers and she will just be throwing away her money. Companies know how to protect against claims like this.
The company stated their reason for "out of fear you might do something" like that makes 0 sense. You can't fire someone just because you think they don't look normal and "might kill you" so you terminate them to ensure your workers' safety. Because he has a lot of anime stuff or rock bank merchs (no offense to any of you, I have a lot of anime stuff myself, I only kill mosquitoes.)
State labor claims don’t cost anything and they would need to respond to the specifics that lead up to the termination, at will jurisdiction or not. The labor board would determine whether or not it was wrongful termination. As someone else stated, the reference to what she might do in the future would definitely be an issue.
Exactly! Thank you.
I finally got a unionized job. Everyone knew what everyone else made, or could look it up easily. This situation she describes is load of bollocks. Sounds like "rules" by the rich for the rich.. When are people going to wake up. You will never be one of them no matter how much they try to convince you to just work harder and save and invest.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Unions and attitudes like this are why so many companies have moved out of the US. Americans are so entitled.
Collective bargaining is the only way we have gotten the rights we have. For you to simplify manufacturing going overseas shows how little you know.
You are 100% wrong. And if you don't know you are wrong, then you are intentionally choosing to believe bad information. Even worse, you are trying to spread it. I dare you to find factual information sources and use them. Until then do the world a favor and STFU. And let me ask you one more thing that is based on your bad information. If paying people a livable wage and providing decent working conditions (which is the main benefit of having a union) is what sends a company's manufacturing overseas, do you think that company should even be in business? Because by underpaying their staff, that business is not contributing to the US economy. It is taking from it. They are giving people the income to buy good from other companies, especially those that are doing their part in contributing. That puts the US in control of foreign business. So you are basically supporting the undermining of the US. It's people like you that are the biggest threat to the security of the US.
A company can fire someone in their probationary period for no reason. She said she had only worked there for 2 weeks so they didn't need a reason to fire her.
But they did give her a reason. And that is an unlawful firing. Even if there for half a day.
Not only did they give her a reason (an illegal one at that), their reasoning dictates that they should be firing anyone with any social media account.
Maybe they should just fire everybody, since anyone of them could set up and start posting on a social media account in just minutes, at any point in time.
I’ve only had one job that had a probationary period. My job in a Fortunate 500 did not. She didn’t say she was in a probationary period. If she didn’t immediately have a job offer, she could have applied for unemployment and let tge compay explain to the state that they let her ho for exercising her federal rights.
Y’all seem to be confused on how at will works. She can still have a case before her state’s labor board regardless of the state being at will or not. The employer will still have to respond to a wrongful termination claim and she can clearly link her termination to what she stated and their assumption that she could potentially share confidential information. The employer’s response would need to include specifics regarding her termination, i.e. any written documentation, meeting logs, etc. Regardless of a state being at will or not, employers still have to follow state and federal labor laws that at will does not make them exempt from. Employers like to use the at will term to discourage employees from filing claims with the labor board.
That makes sense. If I were her, I’d complain just so they don’t try to do this with someone else, because everyone has social media in this day and age. Meaning everyone can potentially be a data leak.
She doedn't seem very smart. I mean, she says "I singed off some documents, so i'm not sure if i can talk about that". Maybe, just maybe, in her first contract there was a clause who forbids her to share that kind of information. And now she singed god knows what...
Contracts can be vague
Actually they would not need to state a reason in an at will jurisdiction. Only she is drawing the connection to the post. The company already said it was not because of that. The company has an army of lawyers and she will just be throwing away her money. Companies know how to protect against claims like this.
The company stated their reason for "out of fear you might do something" like that makes 0 sense. You can't fire someone just because you think they don't look normal and "might kill you" so you terminate them to ensure your workers' safety. Because he has a lot of anime stuff or rock bank merchs (no offense to any of you, I have a lot of anime stuff myself, I only kill mosquitoes.)
State labor claims don’t cost anything and they would need to respond to the specifics that lead up to the termination, at will jurisdiction or not. The labor board would determine whether or not it was wrongful termination. As someone else stated, the reference to what she might do in the future would definitely be an issue.
Exactly! Thank you.