In National Labor Relations Board v. Pier Sixty, LLC, 855 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2017), plaintiff was an employee of defendant. Two days before he and his co-employees were to vote on whether to unionize, plaintiff, while at work, posted a profanity-laced tirade on his publicly accessible Facebook page, insulting his supervisor and his supervisor’s family, before ending the post with the phrase “vote YES for the union.” The post was quickly discovered and plaintiff was fired. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the NLRB, alleging that he had been terminated in retaliation for protected concerted activities in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). An Administrative Law Judge ruled that defendant had violated the NLRA, and defendant appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed. The court noted that while the NLRA generally prohibits an employer from discharging employees for participating in protected, union-related activity, an employee can lose the protection of the NLRA if he acts in an “abusive” manner or engages in “opprobrious conduct.” The court ruled that plaintiff’s use of obscenities and personal insults in the workplace were not so egregious as to deny plaintiff protection under the NLRA. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support that conclusion, including the facts that: defendant consistently tolerated profanity among its workers; the “location” of plaintiff’s comments was an online forum that is a key medium of communication among coworkers and a tool for organization in the modern era; and because plaintiff’s post protested mistreatment by management and exhorted employees to vote for unionization, it reasonably could be determined that the outburst was merely part of a tense debate in the period before the representation election.