A fintech firm has been asked to reverse what the NLRB has deemed an illegal firing over a LinkedIn post made by an employee. Apex Fintech Solutions reportedly terminated a data engineer for publishing a post online that criticized its diversity, equity, and inclusion policy and urged colleagues to raise their voice against its approach to DEI. While the organization considered the post to be defamatory against its employees, the NLRB found the firm’s actions to be unlawful.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made a final ruling on the case, deeming the act of expressing concern a protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The matter of whether the employee was right in his concern or not didn’t figure into the decision, as the focus remained on the employee’s individual right to speak up without the risk of being fired. While Apex Fintech Solutions pushed back against the lawsuit by suggesting that the content of the online post was defamatory in nature, it was unable to build a substantial case in favor of the claim.
While this case in particular will now end with Apex Fintech Solutions forced to rehire the employee and furnish back pay, the lawsuit also serves as a case study of just how delicate balancing employee labor laws can be, particularly when it comes to activity outside of the workplace, as well as conversations around DEI. Matters that can occasionally be resolved through dialogue and internal investigation often escalate too quickly to firings, allowing smaller problems to evolve into much bigger ones.
LinkedIn Post Turns Into Concerted Activities, Fintech Firm Ordered to Reverse “Illegal Firing”
Where pushback against DEI practices was subtle and internal in the past, it is becoming increasingly common in 2026, with many employees speaking out against diversity initiatives as inherently discriminatory. Such is the case of data engineer John Richardson, who published an 11-page post on LinkedIn, calling out what he considered discriminatory behavior within Apex Fintech Solutions and its DEI initiatives.
Part of his statement read, “The company has allowed outright hate to proliferate as a demonstration of what they think DEI is,” with an example of a HR personnel who he accused of going on a “tirade about ‘white males’ making them feel uncomfortable, defensive and guarded simply for existing and doing their jobs or even being part of a discussion with them.” Prior to this, the employee had been vocal about his thoughts on the company’s DEI initiatives and what he perceived as discrimination within the workplace.
The Employees’ DEI Concerns Extend Beyond a LinkedIn Post
Issues first came to light when the employee noticed a Poker Poweher (Poker Power) program, which required an employee to identify as female in order to participate. Documents indicate that the employee enquired about similar programs where he could participate without doing so, and was told he could participate if accompanied by someone who identified as female.
The employee soon sought a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but did not proceed with a case. He also took issue with a mentoring program of the Women in Tech Alliance (WITA) that was open only to female employees.
The employee later accused the employer of overlooking sexism in the company’s Slack channels, writing a letter to senior members of the team to express his concern over the “feminist or sexist anti-male jokes that he considered offensive,” as per documents. While a law firm was engaged to investigate these concerns, nothing came of the investigation, other than a message to the employee from an Apex HR representative, asking him to cooperate with the investigation.
Lack of progress and decisive action on these fronts prompted the employee to make two LinkedIn posts that used the names and titles of other employees to voice his concerns. Days later, the employee was reportedly asked to “remove any false, derogatory, disparaging and/or defamatory statement from his post by the next day.” Without providing clarification on which statements were being referred to, the company allegedly fired the employee the next day. The fintech firm also sued him for defamation, but later dropped the lawsuit.
NLRB Deems Apex Fintech Firing a Violation of His “Protected Concerted Activity”
The NLRB ruling against Apex Fintech doesn’t reflect on its DEI activity, but instead finds that the company was aware that the employee was engaged in protected concerted activity, and that his termination was at least related to this protected activity. NLRB Administrative Law Judge Arthur Amchan indicated that the “posts were protected insofar as they sought to inform the public about matters that affected employees’ working conditions,” and enlisted the support of other employees for their aid and protection.
The outcome of the case may have been different if the employer had been able to prove that the statements made were maliciously false and therefore unprotected, but the company did not call available witnesses to lend authenticity to their stance. The judge also ruled that the company had violated the NLRA by attempting to restrict the employees’ concerns to the proper channels, pursuing legal action against him, and requiring employees to sign an employment agreement with overly restrictive provisions.
As a result of what the NLRB deems an illegal firing, the fintech firm will now be required to reinstate the worker, offer back pay with interest, and cover other financial costs, such as their job search and related tax costs. Additionally, the employer will also be required to post a notice within the workplace informing employees about their rights. Apex Fintech Solutions may continue to oppose the decision and file for exceptions with the Board in Washington, but that remains to be seen.
Navigating the NLRA and Other Regulations Is Never Easy
The NLRB’s decision on the Apex Fintech may come as a surprise to many and a suitable conclusion to others, but the truth is that it can be hard to navigate these laws and regulations in the workplace. Part of the story here focuses on the employees’ concerns over DEI practices, another part focuses on the company’s attempt to restrict what it considered defamatory statements made on such a public forum, and another section of the ruling brings us to the matter of how social media has expanded what can be considered protected concerted activity.
The NLRB ruling here only hinges on the last factor, but the interplay of these facets led to the decisions made by the organization to terminate the employee. Employers must be careful in how they approach issues in the workplace, particularly at a time when there is growing resistance to DEI efforts within the workforce. Consistent dialogue with employees and a path to resolution will likely be critical for organizations in future dealings, ensuring that businesses don’t overstep and regulate what employees do online or outside of work, even when it comes to discussions about the employer.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
