According to a sexual harassment attorney in Orange County, a Louisiana man says he was fired from Chili’s after calling a nonbinary co-worker by their legal name instead of their preferred name. However, Chili’s has stated that the termination was not based on a single comment, but on repeated conduct that the company described as harassment, bullying, and antagonizing behavior.
The former employee, Wesley Kirk Ford Jr., worked at a Chili’s location in Denham Springs, Louisiana. After his termination, Ford posted on Facebook about losing his job and shared a video that he said showed his manager explaining why he was fired.
Termination Followed Alleged Repeated Harassment
According to reports, the manager in the video explained that Ford was being terminated for violating Chili’s harassment and inclusion policy. The issue reportedly involved Ford continuing to call a nonbinary co-worker by a name they no longer used, despite being asked by both the employee and management to stop.
A sexual assault lawyer in Orange County explains that workplace harassment can involve repeated conduct that targets a person based on a protected characteristic or creates an environment that interferes with their ability to work. In this case, Chili’s has alleged that the conduct escalated to the point that the co-worker was unable to continue their shift.
Chili’s Says the Conduct Created a Hostile Work Environment
Chili’s later stated that Ford was fired because of repeated harassment toward another team member, not simply because of one isolated disagreement. The company said Ford had been asked to stop the behavior, but refused.
According to Chili’s, the conduct was excessive, unnecessary, and intended to mock, intimidate, or provoke the other employee. The restaurant chain also stated that the repeated behavior created a hostile working environment and interfered with the co-worker’s ability to do their job.
A civil law attorney notes that workplace disputes involving harassment policies can raise important issues for both employees and employers. Businesses are generally expected to take complaints seriously, investigate reported misconduct, and act when employee conduct creates or contributes to a hostile work environment.
Former Employee Claims First Amendment Protection
Following his termination, Ford posted another video in which he defended his actions and said he viewed the matter as part of a broader cultural dispute. He also claimed that referring to the co-worker by their former name was protected by the First Amendment.
However, a civil suit attorney explains that private workplace rules and constitutional free speech protections are not always the same issue. The First Amendment generally restricts government action, while private employers may enforce workplace conduct policies, anti-harassment rules, and professional behavior standards.
Workplace Harassment Policies Can Apply to Repeated Verbal Conduct
The incident highlights how repeated verbal conduct in the workplace can become a serious issue when an employee continues behavior after being asked to stop. Even when a worker disagrees with a company policy, refusal to follow workplace harassment rules can lead to discipline or termination.
According to Paymon Bidari, a sexual harassment attorney in Orange County, cases involving workplace harassment often depend on the full context, including what was said, how often it occurred, whether management was notified, whether the conduct was targeted, and whether it affected the employee’s ability to work.
While Ford has publicly framed the dispute as an issue of personal speech, Chili’s has described the matter as repeated targeted harassment that violated company policy. The case continues to draw attention because it sits at the intersection of workplace conduct, employee rights, harassment policies, and protections for nonbinary workers.