By: Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Jamie Davila, Esq.

Date: December 10, 2025

On November 18, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a wrongful termination case that highlights whether posting on social media is a protected recreational activity under New York Labor Law § 201-d(2)(c). The appeal follows the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, Sander v. Westchester Reform Temple, 228 A.D.3d 688, which affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

New Your Labor Law § 201-d(2)(c) states that an employer cannot terminate an employee because of an individual’s legal recreational activities done outside work hours, off the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property.[1] Recreational activities are any lawful, leisure-time activity, for which the employee received no compensation, and which is generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of television, movies and similar material.[2]

Jessie Sander was hired to be a secular teacher at the Westchester Reform Temple but was terminated shortly after the school had become aware of a blog post in which Sander expressed her views about Israel and Palestine. The lawsuit alleges that Sander was illegally fired from the school for posting a blog, with a friend, criticizing Israel for its May 2021 airstrikes on buildings in Gaza and warning that conflating Zionism and Judaism was dangerous.[3]  The post went online on May 20, 2022, a week after Sanders was offered the job at the school, but prior to her start date.

Sanders made the argument that her blogging was a protected recreational activity because it was done off duty, without pay, and outside the workplace. Sander argued that blogging is a hobby similar to reading or watching TV as it is an “expressive recreational pursuit.”[4] Sander also argued that the law not only protected the activity of blogging, but the views expressed as well. Westchester Reform Temple argued that Sander was not terminated for blogging but was terminated due to the anti-Zionist views expressed, arguing that those views materially conflicted with the Temple’s Zionist identity.

The Supreme Court and the Appellate Court concluded that Sander was terminated for the content of the blog post, which is not protected under New York Labor Law § 201-d(2)(c). Therefore, the activity of blogging or expression of speech is protected under New York Labor Law § 201-d(2)(c), but the protections do not expand to the content of the speech conveyed.

The Sanders case is a leading example of how expression of personal beliefs on your own social media account can affect your employment. This is in part due to the fact of how connected we are to social media as well as the increasingly blurred lines of the belief that as an employee, you are still upholding and representing the company you work for even when you clock out and post on your private social media account. The notion of representing and upholding company beliefs and values has been used as a tool for employers to use to monitor and impact the activities that their employees take after they have left the workplace and after they are have clocked out. This was brought to light after the infamous “Coldplay Affair.” Internet searches for the tech company, Astronomer, drew widespread media attention and consumer backlash. As a result of the swift reactions from social media, often leading to a public crusade and a deep analysis of the companies’ values, employers are often pressured to take remedial measures such as announcing the suspension or termination of the employee. Employers will then further argue that because the employee is an at will employee, the employer is protected in its decision to terminate the employee.  Employers will then point to the need to allegedly protect the reputation of the company, brand integrity, prevent a hostile work environment, or preserve workplace productivity. These reasons for termination are often supported by company policies and are used to try to  avoid discriminatory enforcement.[5]

We will have to stay tuned to see what the New York Appellate court does with this issue!

If you feel that you are the target of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, or some other issue in the workplace, or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice about your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

[1] https://www.nycourts.gov/ctappS/summaries/Session/2025/Nov18-20.pdf

[2] Id.

[3] Beth Wang, NY High Court to Tackle Employees’ Protections for Online Posts, Bloomberg Law, November 17, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/ny-high-court-to-tackle-employees-protections-for-online-posts (Last visited on November 25, 2025)

[4] Sander v. Westchester Reform Temple, 228 A.D.3d 688

[5] The Intersection of Social Media, Political Expression, and Employment Law: Navigating an Emerging Trend in Workplace Discipline, Wood Smith Henning Berman, September 24, 2025, https://www.wshblaw.com/news-the-intersection-of-social-media-political-expression-and-employment-law-navigating-an-emerging-trend-in-workplace-discipline (Last visited on November 25, 2025).