Kate Oh was not known for being a cooperative employee. In her five years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, she was critical of her superiors, often sending lengthy, scathing emails to human resources complaining about what she perceived as a hostile work environment. She considered herself a whistle blower and advocate for women in the office, bringing attention to what she believed was a workplace plagued by sexism, excessive workloads, and a culture of fear. Eventually, Ms. Oh found herself facing accusations of serious misconduct. She was fired in May 2022 after the A.C.L.U. claimed her criticisms of several Black superiors constituted “racist stereotypes,” despite her never using racial slurs. They argued that her choice of words and phrases displayed a pattern of deliberate anti-Black sentiment.

The case is now being decided by a judge to determine whether the A.C.L.U. had just cause to terminate her employment. The organization’s defense has centered around a broad interpretation of racist or racially charged speech. Critics have noted that this stance seems at odds with the A.C.L.U.’s traditional support of free expression, even if the speech is disagreeable.

The situation has sparked debate about workplace behavior and speech protection under labor law. It also raises questions about how the prominent civil rights organization is now in opposition to these laws, arguing against their application in this case.

A lawyer representing the A.C.L.U. emphasized that the impact of Ms. Oh’s actions on her Black colleagues was the primary concern, regardless of her intent. The defense maintained that she had caused harm to members of the organization through her comments and behavior.

The case has drawn attention to the A.C.L.U.’s perceived shift towards progressive identity-focused politics, away from its core mission of defending free speech. Critics argue that the organization is straying from its traditional stance to support more partisan causes and ideologies.

The incident that led to Ms. Oh’s termination began during a virtual meeting where she expressed skepticism about improvements in workplace conditions. Her use of a particular phrase, deemed violent and problematic, sparked a chain of events that ultimately resulted in her dismissal. Despite apologies and explanations, the organization cited multiple instances where Ms. Oh, allegedly mistreated Black colleagues, as grounds for her termination. Each incident was carefully documented and used to justify the decision to let her go.