• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, November 9, 2010

Dawnmarie Souza isn't the first person to lose a job because of what she wrote on Facebook, but might well be the first one to draw the support of federal authorities. The emergency medical technician allegedly complained about her boss on the social networking service, apparently setting off a chain reaction of other criticisms by her co-workers. Her ex-employer, the American Medical Response of Connecticut ambulance service, then fired her for allegedly violating company policy that forbids discussing the company on social networking sites, according to The New York Times.

Now, the National Labor Relations Board has taken up Souza's case, arguing that her dismissal violates a federal law that protects employees' rights to unionize. That law also allows employees to discuss salaries, working conditions or other topics relevant to their job. After all, it's hard for workers to bargain collectively if they can't compare notes about current conditions. What's more, it should be obvious that anything that union members, or even employees considering unionizing, are entitled to discuss in person, they're also allowed to discuss on the Web.

The ambulance company argues that Souza's "offensive statements" about co-workers "were not concerted activity protected under federal labor law," The New York Times reports. But that begs the question, given that concerted activity can often start with one person's criticisms.

Still, regardless of what happens with this case, many employers undoubtedly will continue to monitor social networking sites and discharge workers based on their online statements. And in many cases, the employers will be on solid legal ground, given that companies can typically fire workers for any reason they like, as long as doing so doesn't violate a law, such as an anti-discrimination law or the labor statute at the center of Souza's case.