If one was denied job due to remarks on muslims during job interview, can the company be sued for violating freedom of speech?
<p>This question is hypothetical. Say I go to a job interview.</p>
<p>During the interview the interviewer says you will be dealing with a lot of middle eastern clients.</p>
<p>I said, no problem. I can do this. I have dealt with many Muslims. Muslims are simple and straight forward people. <strong>Thats why all terrorists are muslims</strong>.</p>
<p>The interview immediately caught attention to my last statement and said: &quot;We do not accept this kind of attitude in the organization. This interview is finish&quot;</p>
<p>I recorded the whole interview session.</p>
<p>With this evidence, can I successfully sue the company for violating freedom of speech?</p>
<p>Thanks for your replies!</p>

<p>You don't explicitly say (this being an internationally visited and populated site), but based on your question, I will assume that you are in the US.</p>
<p>For the question you asked: Is the company the government? If not, then <strong>NO</strong>, you cannot successfully sue <em>a company (or person for that matter) for violating the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution</em> <strong>in any circumstances whatsoever</strong>. (Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine).</p>
<p>The US Constitution does not bind or restrict any private* individual or company, in any way. (Here &quot;private&quot; means &quot;non-governmental; a &quot;public(ly traded) company&quot; is still considered a &quot;private&quot; entity in this context). The US Constitution exclusively deals with four things: How the US Federal Government operates, powers of the government, and restrictions of the government, and the definition of treason (which arguably is itself a restriction on the power of the government, by denying them the ability to define treason themselves).</p>
<p>The First Amendment itself is explicit about this restriction:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Congress</strong> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech (emphasis mine).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that, while the First Amendment does not mention acts of the President, this is because the President's Constitutional powers are quite weak and limited; What powers the President does have and usually uses are granted to the office by laws passed by Congress, and so the restriction comes with them, as Congress cannot delegate to the President powers that Congress themselves do not possess).</p>
<p>As such, no company can be sued <em>for violating the First Amendment</em> (or any portion of the Constitution, really) because it does not apply to them.</p>
<p>Now, there may be <em>laws</em> passed by relevant legislatures, but these are dependent on your jurisdiction (e.g. state). However, as a general rule of thumb this would be legal. Turning down a candidate based on what they say in an interview is the point of having an interview; Turning down an candidate for saying something in an interview that could potentially leave the company liable for a lawsuit under the theory of vicarious liability is only good common sense.</p>

<p>Religion is a <a href="https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#:%7E:text=Protected%20Class%3A%20The%20groups%20protected,with%20physical%20or%20mental%20handicaps." rel="nofollow noreferrer">protected class</a>.  A &quot;protected class&quot; is a group of people against which employers cannot discriminate.</p>
<p>You have indicated that you have deeply-held beliefs about one religious group.  Even if those beliefs are not in fact deeply held, hiring you would expose the employer to a potential law suit down the line.  The question of whether or not you were discriminated against would not even be considered.  The fact is that Congress <em>has</em> passed a law which effectively makes certain utterances unacceptable in a work place.  So your perspective employer has the defense that they simply have followed the law.</p>
<p>Even if this defense were not available to your perspective employer, it would still be a fact that an employer could limit an employee's conduct in many ways in which a government cannot.  There is no blanket protection of speech in the circumstances in which someone is paying you to act in a certain way.</p>

constitutional-law freedom-of-speech first-amendment employment