I'm fascinated by stories like this, because there is always more information than meets the eye. There are a few pieces of information not in the post.

First, the post above does not mention that this took place 5 years ago. That is significant because companies and bloggers were still figuring out what the rules should be about this blogging thing. These days’ companies have policies about blogging, and employees are more aware of the rules.

Second, the posted photo is not the most risqué one. Google "Ellen Simonetti" and you will find a picture of her with her with her uniform blouse partially unbuttoned and her bra showing. Not particularly scandalous, but given that she was in her Delta Airlines uniform and on a Delta airlines plane, I would say it showed poor judgment.

In her favor, I agree that the company didn't have a policy about blogging, and could have simply disciplined her without firing her.

I encourage everyone to read up on the story before expressing an opinion. Check out wikipedia to start.

Isn't this story five years old? And isn't it also a good object lesson in determining what, exactly, your online brand says about you?

I think one plausible--and valuable--way to read Ellen Simonetti's story is this: someone made choices about how to present themselves and their workplace online, and they were pretty dumb choices that were easy to avoid. Those choices had consequences. All choices do.

Another issue here is that this person encroached upon her employer's brand, in my opinion. This wasn't just a matter of her personal life.

The point would be stronger if the post had identified this as an old incident. I agree with Scott's point that when this happened, companies were just starting to form policies about online communication, including blogs. But it's also true that the issue persists, which is why the current presentation, which implies that Simonetti's firing is recent, doesn't make quite the case that it might.

I also agree with Barbara; I alluded to that point in my comment about the workplace, but she made it much more clearly.

Ok, here goes...I think the Electronic Frontier Foundation makes a very valid point. *ducks head*

You are most definitely free to say whatever you want (people always claim their First Right Amendment, which was really written so that the GOVERNMENT would never censor what people said) a luxury we are VERY fortunate to have even in today's world (hello China and Iran, how are you?) That being said, this is only for the government. It does not include private parties (such as your employer, though I would be curious how that works for government employees...) ESPECIALLY as Barbara and Kate pointed out.

If you are going to blog about ANYTHING to do with your employment, you better be prepared for any reprocussions that may come down as a result of it. I think we have gone so far in the "Well, that's a stupid rule/law/decision" that we suddenly get all fired up when someone is disclipined (or fired in this case) for not thinking about the consequences of their actions.

Another case from that same year? Washingtonienne. I think that can't have helped Simonetti.

@Dead Hedge, no! "Brand" is trendy, and "reputation" is stodgy. How could you possibly suggest that they are synonymous? Oh, now I'm just sad. And stodgy.

Others have already said it, but I'll share my thoughts too. The woman took those photos while wearing her work uniform, in the place where she works. She was likely at work, being paid by her employer for her time when she took those photos. I think that alone would give Delta justification for some form of disciplinary action against her. And of course, she is also actively damaging Delta's brand by sharing those photos on the web. I don't think it's "bad news" that she "has no legal means of redress" against Delta.

This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech, or an employer firing an employee for choices the employee made in her personal life. But I suppose there is a (trivial) personal branding lesson here, at least to the extent that people engage in personal branding in an effort to alter an employer's opinion of them. She branded herself as a poor employee, and her employer responded. Personal branding works!

This has nothing to do with personal brand, nor is it the whole story.

Pete Kistler, this was a poor attempt to use trendy buzzwords to get read.

Personal brand my ass, the girl took revealing photos while wearing company clothes, in a company plane, probably on company business. THAT'S why she got fired.

The pictures were NOT revealing at all. You saw about 2 square inches of her bra and hardly any cleavage. If that's revealing, I'd hate to see what you'd call conservative.

How far can private employers (PE) go in restricting employee's off-work activities on-line or otherwise? Should a PE be allowed to limit any activity it wishes without regard to its relevance to the company or job? For instance should a construction company be allowed to force its employees to sign an agreement forbiding the critisim of a competitor's supplier by the employee on any forum, blog, chat room, etc. during off-work time, even where there is no mention of the PE or the employee's connection with the PE?

That is exactly what at least one major employer in California is doing right now.

It is one thing to fire an employee for publicly critising his/her employer. It is an entirely different thing to suppress any critisism of an entire population of companies (and companies which supply those companies) which compete with the employer.

It seems to me that this sort of action has as great an impact on everyone's freedom of speech as any government action. Yes, you are free to look for another job if you don't like your employer's policies. However, with a job market like today's, losing one's job is an extreme hardship. The threat of being fired, especially now, creates a "chilling effect" every bit as effective as almost anything the government might do.