Reporter’s firing lawful, NLRB judge says

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that The Washington Post was within its rights to fire former reporter Felicia Sonmez in 2022, finding that her online criticisms of colleagues and the company were not protected under federal labor law.

The decision offers a high-profile reminder that not all employee speech – even when framed as advocacy – qualifies as protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The backstory: tweets, tension, and termination

The issue began in June 2022 when Sonmez publicly criticized fellow reporter David Weigel for retweeting a sexist joke. The Post acted quickly, asking Weigel to remove the retweet and apologize (which he did) within hours. Weigel was subsequently suspended without pay for 30 days.

But Sonmez continued posting a flood of tweets – hundreds over five days – taking aim at the publication’s leadership, its handling of workplace issues, and colleagues who disagreed with her. Her posts accused The Post of enabling sexism and blamed the organization for the harassment she received online.

In June, The Post fired Sonmez for insubordination. In response, the Washington-Baltimore News Guild filed an unfair labor practice charge, arguing that Sonmez had engaged in protected concerted activity.

The legal test: when speech loses protection

In his decision, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi applied the Oncor Electric framework to determine whether Sonmez’s social media activity was protected under Section 7 of the NLRA.

The test involves two questions:

1. Was the employee’s communication related to a labor dispute?
2. Was the speech so disloyal, reckless, or maliciously untrue that it loses protection under the Act?

The judge found that Sonmez’s conduct failed both prongs:

• No labor nexus: Giannasi noted that Sonmez’s commentary centered largely on her personal experiences and general concerns about sexism, rather than any collective effort or labor dispute involving company employees. Her own explanation that she used Twitter to help others “feel seen and heard” regarding online misogyny undermined the argument that her tweets were connected to workplace organizing or advocacy.
• Disloyal and reckless speech: Even if the posts were tied to labor conditions, the judge found that they crossed the line into unprotected territory. Sonmez continued to claim The Post had taken no action on the sexist retweet – despite knowing that Weigel had been disciplined – and blamed the paper for the online harassment she received. These statements were characterized as reckless and disparaging.

Takeaways for employers

The case reinforces that protected speech has limits, especially when it veers into personal attacks or misrepresents the facts.

Not every public complaint by an employee qualifies as protected concerted activity. The context, content, and intent matter.

As always, employers should document misconduct responses and discipline consistently. The Washington Post’s prompt response to Weigel’s tweet, when compared against the timing of Sonmez’s posts, strengthened its position in court.