Roseanne case and Canada’s laws
Law continues to evolve amid series of controversies in U.S., says Howard Levitt.
“Racism is not a known side effect of Ambien” is likely the best public relations line of the past five years.
That was how the producer of the sleeping pill, Ambien, responded to Roseanne Barr’s defence that she had just been “Ambien tweeting ” in the late night. Barr ended her career and the jobs of many others by referring to the Iranian born child of African-American parents, Valerie Jarrett, with a slur.
It was a bad week for indiscriminate and problematic tweeting. Samantha Bee used a vile phrase about Ivanka Trump in response to a picture of Trump holding one of her children, at a time that undocumented immigrant children are being separated from their families, and demanding that Trump speak to her father about the issue. That tweet too was widely condemned, with many asking why Bee was not fired from her show and alleging a double standard in Hollywood.
Legendary feminist Germaine Greer added to the public calumny by commenting at a literary conference about overreaction to rape.
For everyone with a smartphone, a career-ending tweet is just a tap away.
Although last week might be anomalously bad, at least every month we hear of someone famous apologizing for a social media posting. This has accelerated since #Metoo movement.
Needless to say, none of these comments and tweets occurred as part of these people’s jobs, but that makes limited difference under Canadian law. If you conduct yourself in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the interests or reputation of your employer, there is cause for your discharge. Canadian cases have included such instances as dishonest personal tax schemes by a manager of internal audit, consorting with a prostitute on company premises, and downloading child porn found that it was not cause for his discharge. But the judge did mention that police officers are in a unique position of public trust so their off-duty conduct will be treated quite seriously.
But if a Roseanne Barr were to have been fired in Canada and everyone on the show to have lost their jobs as result, what would be their recourse? It would be clearly wrongful dismissal for them, and they would be able to sue the network. But what about suing Roseanne? Could they argue that their discharge was a foreseeable result of her tweet, making her liable in negligence? The law continues to evolve and that question has not yet been answered by a Canadian court.
Financial Post
Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. The most recent of his six books is War Stories from the Workplace: Columns by Howard Levitt.