Employee too distraught to work over Dobbs decision loses job

I haven't been shy about hiding my disgust over Dobbs, the end of constitutional protections for abortion, and the threat to reproductive, women's and other fundamental rights that our nation currently faces. 

Michael Lopez was also disgusted; so disgusted, in fact, that he couldn't even work. Lopez was a production coordinator at Universal Music Enterprises, whose job included processing a weekly Friday report of upcoming releases. Except the Friday that the Supreme Court released Dobbs, Lopez was too upset to do his job. Instead, he sent the following email to his co-workers:

I'm in mourning due to the attack on people with uteruses in the US. Federally guaranteed access to abortion is gone.

Vivendi and Universal Music Group must stop donating to anti-abortion, anti-queer and anti-trans politicians. Politicians like Marsha Blackburn, Ken Buck, Victoria Spartz, etc. Or expect more unproductive days.

The following Monday, HR communicated to Lopez his termination, for not doing his job, disrupting the day of his co-workers, and poor judgement.

Is Lopez's termination for not doing his job in protest over abortion rights legal? Well, it depends.

The National Labor Relations Act protects employees from retaliation by their employers when they engage in political advocacy. The legality of termination hinges on the timing and disruptiveness of the protest. 

1. Non-disruptive political advocacy for or against a specific issue related to a specifically identified employment concern, which takes place during the employees’ own time and in non-work areas = protected.
2. On-duty political advocacy for or against a specific issue related to a specifically identified employment concern = subject to lawful and neutrally applied work rules.
3. Leaving or stopping work to engage in political advocacy for or against a specific issue related to a specifically identified employment concern = subject to restrictions imposed by lawful and neutrally-applied work rules.

Assuming Lopez's protest is work related (and it arguably is because he's not just talking about Dobbs, but also about his employer's political donations), his protest would fall under category 3. If his employer has a bona fide and consistently applied zero-tolerance policy for similar misconduct, then the NLRA likely does not protect his misconduct. If, however, the employer doesn't have a policy or it is inconsistently applied, Lopez's termination may raise NLRA concerns.

Here's my take. Whether or not the NLRA protected this employee's conduct, what else was going on with him that caused the employer to terminate based on this one action? It seems that this was not the first go-round with Lopez not performing. If Lopez was a quality employee, the termination seems like an over-reaction or a political hit job.