So should he be waived/fired because his beliefs didnât align with their beliefs (Chicago Bull)or values? What do you think, can your company/boss do this?
Private companies in the U.S. are legally allowed to discriminate and fire workers for political views. In states with at-will employment a worker can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, and the burden of proof is on the employee to prove discrimination against a protected class (race, religion, religious creed, national origin, sexual orientation).
So, at face value itâs difficult to say that this firing is unjustified (discrimination against religious belief) or justified (expression of a political stance/viewpoint). A look at the contract he signed will help illuminate if there are contractual breaches that occurred as a result of the firing and vice-versa.
Most cases that SCOTUS has heard on this issue related to public sector employees and political speech [Janus v. AFSCME (2018); Heffernan v. City of Paterson (2016); Lane v. Franks (2014); and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)]
In the ruling of Mahanoy ASD v. B.L. (2021) SCOTUS identified that a studentâs off-campus speech - including social media posts - are protected so long as it doesnât cause substantial disruption (a bullshit wishy-washy cop-out by SCOTUS IMO).
Insofar as Jaden Ivey is concerned his options for recourse would be the binding terms of his contract, the laws of the state of Illinois, and the National Labor Relations Act for relief in court. Barring those options he is S.O.L. without bringing his case to SCOTUS and achieving a favorable ruling that guarantees freedom of speech for private employees.
The problem is similar to Colin Kaepernickâs.
Like Kaepernick, Ivey used his position on a platform not owned by him (the team) to make negative generalizations about the league. In both cases it can be argued that both teams (49ers and Bulls respectively) and both leagues (NFL and NBA) are forced to use resources to mitigate any financial damage done.
In both cases comments like these tend to split the fan base in half and pit one side against another. Thatâs about the last thing a team owner wants.
Thereâs nothing at all wrong with holding strong personal convictions and making them public. The problem is that sometimes the pushback can generate negative externalities that are left to the team and the league to resolve. In some cases (LeBron James comes to mind), the player makes public comments that align with positions held by the team and the league, and ownership decides no harmâ>no foul. Their prerogative as owners.
Like Kaepernick and his situation with the 49ers and the NFL, Ivey should have found a way to speak out in a way that didnât drag the Bulls or the NBA into a PR battle, or resign.
This! I wonder he can say what he said based on this?
A note: season is almost done, I do wonder does he get his fully salary anyways?
That would have to be determined by the courts, and as for severance that would be detailed in his contract.
Found the answer:
AI ćčŚ
Bulls news: Will Jaden Ivey receive full $10 million âŚJaden Ivey is set to receive his full $10.1 million salary for the 2025-26 season despite being waived by the Chicago Bulls for âconduct detrimental to the teamâ. As of March 2026, his guaranteed rookie-scale contract ensures he is paid the remaining balance of his $32.95 million four-year deal
I think the mistake was for the NBA to even have political or social stances. They have backed away from it themselves the last year or 2.
Itâs in our policy and employment contract to stay apolitical and away from social issues. I just tell my staff that we are a professional beauty supplier and the best way we can help the world is by doing our jobs well. Our clients are counting on us for their business. We arenât going to change the world posting BLM 
on social media. I find businesses trying to get social clout for stances really silly.
For many it was personal choice, for some it was a survival tactic, but there was also an enormous amount of corporate pressure to get on whatever bandwagon was supposedly popular or going to earn the company more money at the time.
Something similar but perhaps more egregious given the circumstances that happened a few years back:
My (now former) Australian Rules football team the Essendon Bombers hired a new CEO. He was the retired CEO of one of the major banks, NAB, and was on the board of a church, City on a Hill. Shortly after his appointment someone on social media dug up a 10 year old sermon recording from that church in which homosexual activity and abortion were referred to as sins. He was dumped by the club less than 24 hours after his appointment as a result.
It was guilt by association and it sent a pretty clear message. Though it was probably in part a knee jerk face saving exercise, and the club did apologise for their decision to terminate him, however that was only after getting their pants sued off. What I found most unimpressive of that debacle was the then state premier (Dan Andrews of covid lockdown and belt-and-road fame) coming out and himself saying the CEO should not have been appointed, and to call that church raging bigots; I have a cousin and several friends who attend and I can tell you theyâre not.
So theyâll never hire a Muslim for the job. Interesting conundrum that one.
No, you say he was a member of the board presumably with some level of responsibility for the churchâs actions. Thatâs not whatâs typically called guilt by association. Not saying it was necessary right to fire him.
I imagine your advice to staff is good advice.
Owning a business today has to be tough. Imagine being a beauty brand that took a pro-women-rights stance last century and sells their products at a premium. What are they to do with their brand investment in the face of the LGBT+ movement?
I think that over the years, by giving its players lots of rope (to showcase personality or personal character or wokeness over championships) the NBA has choked out more of its audience than any other American pro sports league. Maybe theyâve finally decided the best way to help the world is by focusing on becoming the best basketball league in the world ⌠but I suspect the jury is still out on that.
Youâre right that him being in a leadership position will create more of an issue in the eyes of those who disagree with it. However I disagree, because a church board/vestry etc is typically made of lay people and concerned with practical matters of running the church, not with its theology or teaching, and that it was simply his membership to that board as opposed to anything heâd said or done that caused issue
In Aussie or USA your talking about?
Iâm talking about the NBA.
Most Muslims are anti homosexual, itâs a core part of their religion. Many in the religion believe in physical punishment , prison or death for homosexuals.