Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks
The National Labor Relations Board is seeking reinstatement and back pay for former Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez, who was fired in 2022 after attacking colleagues and fiercely criticizing the paper on social media.
Sonmez was terminated for insubordination after she continued condemning other Post reporters online despite multiple memos issued by then-executive editor Sally Buzbee calling for civility. The Washington-Baltimore News Guild filed an unfair labor practice charge over Sonmez's firing. The NLRB, Guild and Washington Post each filed briefs on Friday.
"To put it bluntly, Respondent just got sick of Sonmez's Twitter activity criticizing the Post's and its policies, as well as its implementation—or lack thereof—of those policies. In response, Respondent decided to bypass its progressive discipline system and fire her because of those criticisms," NLRB prosecutors said.
Wapo's Felicia Sonmez Torches 'White' Colleagues For 'Downplaying' Workplace Drama With 'Synchronized Tweets'
When asking for the complaint to be dismissed, the Post argued that allowing Sonmez to return to the company "would cause unmanageable and unacceptable disruption," and referred to the actions that resulted in her dismissal as a "seven-day tirade."
"Because Sonmez lacks the 'journalistic integrity' necessary to work in the Post's newsroom, she should not be reinstated," the Post argued.
Read On The Fox News App
The Guild believes the Post violated her rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
The saga began in June 2022 when Sonmez went after then-colleague Dave Weigel for retweeting a joke: "Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual."
Sonmez was not amused and publicly criticized her colleague, also attacking her workplace by reacting, "Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!"
Sonmez then launched a days-long public tirade against the Post and many of her colleagues.
Washington Post Torn To Shreds For Suspending Reporter Dave Weigel For A Retweet: 'Completely Insane'
Weigel was placed on a one-month unpaid suspension despite having removed the retweet and issuing an apology. He left the Post to join the start-up site Semafor later that year.
However, Sonmez's tweetstorms berating co-workers continued, and she began receiving public pushback from Post colleagues, who Sonmez then attacked publicly.
She repeatedly ripped the paper's social media policy throughout the ordeal. Sonmez even took aim at "White" reporters who expressed solidarity with the paper amid infighting.
"I don't know who the colleagues anonymously disparaging me in media reports are. But I do know that the reporters who issued synchronized tweets this week downplaying the Post's workplace issues have a few things in common with each other," Sonmez wrote during a lengthy Twitter thread, saying they "are all White."
Washington Post Reporters Continue Airing Their Grievances With One Another On Twitter
Despite Buzbee urging staffers to treat each other respectfully, following a week of constant viral warfare between Post colleagues, Sonmez was terminated. The Washington Post unveiled an updated social media policy after the ordeal.
NLRB prosecutors are seeking reinstatement and back pay for Sonmez, who now works for Blue Ridge Public Radio. Sonmez declined comment.
"The decision is now up to the judge," Sonmez wrote on X.
The Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital's Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rand Paul Slams ‘Incredibly Petty' Trump in Incredibly Petty Picnic Rant
Senator Rand Paul stood before the Capitol Hill TV cameras on Wednesday to complain—at length—that he was no longer invited to this year's White House picnic. 'The level of immaturity is beyond words,' Paul told reporters, adding that the move to withdraw his invite was 'just incredibly petty.' Paul said his invitation was pulled in retaliation for his refusal to support Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' He said he would consider voting for the GOP's budget if the debt limit portion was removed, but that is unlikely to happen by the time the Senate votes on it. 'I'm arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse,' Paul said. 'And they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic. I don't know. I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.' Paul said the move wouldn't make him come around. 'It's just, I think, a really sad day that this is the level of warfare they've stooped to,' the Kentucky Republican said, apparently unaware that there are far more serious disputes raging across the country. Paul said he was unsure who made the call to disinvite him and his family. It could be Trump or 'petty staffers who have been running a sort of a paid influencer campaign against me for two weeks on Twitter,' he said, before taking aim at Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. 'You have people that are basically going around casually talking about getting rid of habeas corpus,' Paul said. 'And the same people that are directing this campaign are the same people that casually would throw out parts of the Constitution and suspend habeas corpus. So, I think what it tells is they don't like hearing me say stuff like that, and so they want to quiet me down. And it hasn't worked, and so they're going to try to attack me.' Paul pointed out that in his time in the Senate, neither Presidents Obama nor Biden disinvited him to the bipartisan gathering on the South Lawn, which he had been planning on attending alongside his wife, son, daughter-in-law and six-month-old grandson. The invite revocation may have also been spurred by how Paul broke with Trump on another issue: Saturday's $45 million military parade in Washington, D.C., which is supposed to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary but which conveniently falls on Trump's birthday. 'I've never been a big fan of goose-stepping soldiers in big tanks and missiles rolling down the street,' Paul explained this week. 'So if you asked me, I wouldn't have done it. We were always different than the images you saw of the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that.'
Washington Post
10 hours ago
- Washington Post
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded.
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded. We texted 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests agitators that have no lives It will only escalate things These people just wanted to destroy suppressing freedom of speech out of control immigrants make America great This is how they responded. By Washington Post staff June 11, 2025 at 8:00 p.m. EDT 4 minutes ago What do Americans think about the protests in Los Angeles and President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines there? The Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School texted more than 1,000 people Tuesday — including more than 200 California residents — to ask. The survey finds Americans are divided in their views toward L.A. protesters and Trump's decision to send the National Guard and Marines to the city. California residents are more critical of Trump's actions, as are Democrats and political independents. Americans are also mostly negative on Trump's handling of immigration, an issue that was a strength for him early in his presidency. Participants' answers have been lightly edited for clarity and style. Do you support or oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the L.A. protests? Support 41% Unsure 15% Oppose 44% Deploying the military to crush political protest is classic authoritarian fascism, and must be opposed. California man, 38, independent Quell the uprising before it gets out of control. California man, 63, Republican It doesn't seem like the city or state asked for or wanted that support and seems to be escalating an already tenuous and difficult situation. Maryland woman, 37, Democrat Show more responses Americans are roughly split on Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests in L.A., while a majority of Californians oppose Trump deploying the military. Support Unsure Oppose California 32% In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Support." 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 58 In the "undefined" group, 58 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 43 In the "undefined" group, 43 percent of people responded with "Support." 15 In the "undefined" group, 15 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 76 In the "undefined" group, 76 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 86 In the "undefined" group, 86 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 48 In the "undefined" group, 48 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Most Democrats oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A., while almost 9 in 10 Republicans support it. Independents lean against Trump's action by a 15-percentage-point margin, 48 percent to 33 percent. Tuned-in Americans tend to oppose sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A. Support Unsure Oppose Paying a lot of attention to L.A. protests (34%) 37% In the "undefined" group, 37 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 54 In the "undefined" group, 54 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying some attention (40%) 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Support." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying a little/no attention (26%) 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "Support." 26 In the "undefined" group, 26 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 29 In the "undefined" group, 29 percent of people responded with "Oppose." The more people are paying attention to the protests in L.A., the more likely they are to oppose Trump sending in the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests. This is partly due to Democrats following the protests more closely, although independents who are paying more attention are also more critical of Trump's decision. Do you support or oppose the protests in Los Angeles against the federal government's immigration enforcement? Support 39% Unsure 21% Oppose 40% Americans are almost evenly split over the protests against the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts, with about 4 in 10 in support and opposition, and the remainder unsure. Riots are not peaceful protests. Damaging property and injuring people is not included in the right to assemble/protest. California woman, 56, independent Los Angeles is a county of immigrants who do a lot for our community & they are our friends. Most of them are hard working, great people. California woman, 72, Democrat I believe everyone has a right to disagree and protest ICE, however arson and violence is not acceptable. Florida man, 57, independent Show more responses Support Unsure Oppose California 45% In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 36 In the "undefined" group, 36 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 38 In the "undefined" group, 38 percent of people responded with "Support." 22 In the "undefined" group, 22 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 41 In the "undefined" group, 41 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 70 In the "undefined" group, 70 percent of people responded with "Support." 18 In the "undefined" group, 18 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 79 In the "undefined" group, 79 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 39 In the "undefined" group, 39 percent of people responded with "Support." 27 In the "undefined" group, 27 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Californians are more likely to support the protests, along with 7 in 10 Democrats. Independents are slightly more likely to support the protests than to oppose them, while about 8 in 10 Republicans are opposed. Do you think the L.A. protesters have been mostly peaceful or mostly violent? Mostly peaceful 35% Unsure 27% Mostly violent 37% Americans are also split over whether the protests in L.A. are mostly peaceful or mostly violent, with over one-quarter saying they are unsure. The protests in L.A. since Friday have been largely confined to a few city blocks. There have been sporadic, violent clashes involving a few protestors that prompted the mayor to impose a curfew. Mostly peaceful Unsure Mostly violent Democrats 60% In the "undefined" group, 60 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 16 In the "undefined" group, 16 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Republicans 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 66 In the "undefined" group, 66 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Independents/Others 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 32 In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Six in 10 Democrats say the protesters have been mostly peaceful while two-thirds of Republicans say they have been mostly violent and independents are split. Are police using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, not using enough force or handling it about right? Too much 31% About right 43% Not enough 26% About 3 in 10 Americans say police are using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, about a quarter say they are not using enough force and over 4 in 10 say they are handling it 'about right.' Too much About right Not enough Democrats 55% In the "undefined" group, 55 percent of people responded with "Too much." 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "About right." 9 In the "undefined" group, 9 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Republicans 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Too much." 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "About right." 50 In the "undefined" group, 50 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Independents/Others 34 In the "undefined" group, 34 percent of people responded with "Too much." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "About right." 21 In the "undefined" group, 21 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Most Democrats say police are using too much force, while half of Republicans say they are not using enough force. Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling immigration enforcement, including deportations? Approve 37% Unsure 12% Disapprove 52% The poll finds the public rating Trump's immigration policy — including deportations — negatively by a 15 percentage-point margin, 52 percent to 37 percent, an issue that was a strong point for him a few months ago. Approve Unsure Disapprove Voted for Trump 75% In the "undefined" group, 75 percent of people responded with "Approve." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 12 In the "undefined" group, 12 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Voted for Harris 5 In the "undefined" group, 5 percent of people responded with "Approve." 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 90 In the "undefined" group, 90 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Three-quarters of Americans who voted for Trump approve of the president's immigration policy, while 9 in 10 of those who voted for Kamala Harris disapprove.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Washington Post has a new Opinion editor four months after Bezos touted ‘significant shift'
The Washington Post on Wednesday announced it has a new Opinion editor. The move comes four months after it announced a 'significant shift' to the Opinion page and the departure of its embattled section chief. Adam O'Neal, who currently serves as The Economist's Washington correspondent, will take over as the Post's top Opinion editor, the outlet announced in an X post that includes an introductory video from O'Neal. 'We're also going to be stalwart advocates of free markets and personal liberties. We'll be unapologetically patriotic, too,' O'Neal said in the video. 'Our philosophy will be rooted in fundamental optimism about the future of this country.' The Opinion section won't 'lecture' readers about ideologies or 'demand you think certain ways about policy,' O'Neal said. The stance falls in line with the vision articulated four months prior by the Post's owner, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Bezos also mentioned free markets and personal liberties when describing the section's new mandate, which drew backlash from some staffers — including from Marty Baron, the Post's revered former executive editor under whom the outlet won 11 Pulitzer Prizes — and praise from some conservatives. 'We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,' Bezos wrote in a February X post. 'We'll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.' As part of the February announcement, Bezos noted that David Shipley, O'Neal's predecessor, had been offered the opportunity to continue leading the section under the new directive but that Shipley had 'decided to step away.' Shipley's departure from the Post followed four months of mounting criticism from Post staffers and readers. The storied newspaper drew criticism for its eleventh-hour choice not to endorse then-Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential bid, which led to several editorial board members resigning and more than 200,000 subscribers canceling their digital subscriptions. Shipley also decided not to run a cartoon satirizing the relationship between Bezos and US President Donald Trump from Ann Telnaes, leading to the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist's resignation. Since Shipley's departure, deputy Opinion editor Mary Duenwald has served as interim section chief. No start date has been announced for O'Neal. In a Wednesday email to staffers obtained by CNN, Will Lewis, the Post's chief executive and publisher, noted that O'Neal 'recognizes the importance of ensuring our opinion coverage is relevant, accessible, and consequential for readers who feel underserved.' 'His appointment is about more than just filling a role; it is about connecting our editorial voice to the real concerns and conversations happening across America,' Lewis said. In the email, Lewis similarly championed Bezos' mandate for the Opinion section: He said its new direction is not 'aligned to any political party' but instead presents 'an opportunity for our Opinion section to share the best of American values.' O'Neal's hiring comes just over two weeks after the Post offered voluntary buyouts to Opinion staffers, the Post's video and copy desks and any news employees who have been at the paper for 10 years or more. The buyout offers run through the end of July.
