Hacker News

points by hkhanna 17 hours ago | 0 comments

Instacart fired my wife for running for office. My wife asked for approval to run from her boss, the Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, who approved it and the company was excited for her to run.

A couple days after my wife launched her campaign, Instacart did a 180 and told her they had to fire her for running. Bad for business to run for office and criticize a Republican incumbent!

My wife was also pregnant and she told them. They fired her the next day.

Congratulations on the merger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/15/instacart...

[–] assimpleaspossi 16 hours ago

My son lost his job so did InstaCart for a while. He got really good at it and started making good money. Then they sent him to an apartment complex but didn't give him an apartment number.

He called support who contacted the customer and said they were on their way and could he wait five minutes. Of course he did but 30 minutes went by.

Contacted support again who said customer would be there in five minutes but, 15 minutes later, support said to just take the goods back to the store.

He took the goods back to the store but the store refused to accept them. Support said he could just donate them or keep them.

Despite showing the back and forth text messages, he was deactivated for not delivering to the customer.

[–] cowlevel 15 hours ago

We're supposed to sue companies when they treat us like this but few of us do because it's a difficult process. Companies know this and act with impunity.

[–] nikanj 15 hours ago

Did you mean "mandatory arbitration"? Suing is such a 20th century action.

[–] wakamoleguy 15 hours ago

I wonder if this would have affected the result, though. I haven't been through either process, but it seems like either would be a venue for making your case and getting a fair judgement. My understanding (which could be totally wrong, please correct me) is that companies mostly force arbitration because it is cheaper and less variable than trials, not necessarily because the results tend to be biased toward them. Is that true?

[–] freejazz 14 hours ago

Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?

[–] wakamoleguy 14 hours ago

My understanding is that it's cheaper because it is mediated by largely by a single person in a conference room, rather than the heavier process of collecting a jury. And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

[–] freejazz 14 hours ago

Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.

>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.

>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?

> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

Have you proven why? To make my point again: we just feel like it won't work so we don't even try

[–] freejazz 14 hours ago

The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"

[–] OkayPhysicist 14 hours ago

Arbitration is not nearly as one-sided as people make it out to be. It's much more about making sure that the case can be completed quickly than it is about the company winning.

[–] cowlevel 13 hours ago

The company, of course, knows all the tricks to win consistently.

[–] OkayPhysicist 13 hours ago

That's just as true in real court.

If you have an absolute lay-up of a case (something like "my company fired me because I got pregnant, and lied about by pretending to change their mind about something they'd already approved of"), then you're going to win the arbitration case. Well, more accurately, the company's going to throw a pile of cash at you before it even gets that far, because they screwed up and the first time legal hears about it, the first words out of their mouth will be "you did fucking what?".

It is nigh impossible to cleanly fire an employee from the time you learn they're pregnant, to like a year after they come back from maternity leave. Unless they broke into your office and took a shit on the desk, the default opinion of every judge is going to be "I read about this exact scenario while studying for the bar, literally textbook".

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

See that's part of the difficult process. Mandatory arbitration clauses aren't even always valid.but we just assume they are.

[–] etc-hosts 14 hours ago

they want you to sue your phone

[–] chaosharmonic 14 hours ago

Instacart stole money from me.

When COVID hit, I got sick and had to spend several days inside ordering delivery. And more than once, the store was missing half my order. So I then had to make new orders for the food I wasn't able to get the first time -- while they refunded me only for the items they didn't have, leaving me to eat the (multiple) delivery fees and driver tips.

[–] patentatt 16 hours ago

Fascinatingly, this is not prima facie illegal in many US states! Wow. We live in a corporatist hell hole don’t we?

[–] paulddraper 15 hours ago

Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for a $1k political donation.

Corporatist hellhole was your reaction to that too I imagine.

* Technically resigned, but there was significant pressure from Mozilla.

[–] crote 14 hours ago

One of them is a worker drone with very little power, the other is the company's founder and CEO who is openly telling people that he believes a decent chunk of his employees don't deserve basic human rights. Quite a difference there, don't you think?

[–] Sparkle-san 14 hours ago

Software, especially open-source has an over-representation of people that identify as LGBTQ. Brendan openly signaled that he thought a good subset of his employees did not deserve the same rights as others. I don't see how he could have been an effective CEO after doing that.

[–] crote 14 hours ago

It would've been a huge liability for Mozilla. An employer is not allowed to discriminate on sexuality. Fire any LGBTQ employee, and there's now a decent chance that Mozilla will now have to prove in court that it didn't have anything to do with the CEO openly hating gay people and creating a hostile work environment.

[–] lloydde 14 hours ago

What a strange hill to stand on at this time. The overwhelming public backlash, boycotts, and resulting damage to Mozilla's brand left Eich with no practical choice but to step down.

[–] paulddraper 14 hours ago

“Overwhelming.” Eich made a modest donation to a ballot initiative, which got majority support by California btw.

But in any case, your point is “it was damaging the company, therefore it makes sense to see them gone.” And there’s your parallel.

—

In reality, whether corporate agnosticism is right depends almost exclusively on your feelings of the underlying cause.

[–] charcircuit 16 hours ago

What would be illegal about firing an employee who you think is causing your company to get a bad image?

[–] darkstar999 16 hours ago

> The lawsuit says Instacart violated a California law that bars companies from preventing their employees from becoming candidates for public office, among other complaints.

[–] wpm 16 hours ago

What would be the consequences of ensuring that only those with enough personal wealth to be able to go without a job while campaigning can run for office?

[–] 233mhz 15 hours ago

The thing about legality is that you kinda get to chose. In your case the companies' interests weight more than the people's interest.

For example in the US it's totally legal to spy on your employees with key loggers &co, in most of Europe it isn't

[–] sheepscreek 16 hours ago

She approached to ask for permission. If they had any reservations, that was the time to discuss them. She did what was expected of an employee. The fact that they blessed her and then went back on their word seems wrong.

Not a lawyer but my intuition says there might be some legal grounds here favouring the wife.

My take is someone even higher up found out later and did not like it. Now it’s entirely possible the individuals who gave their blessings were supportive of the party the wife was standing for, and the ones above them weren’t? Still whoever blessed the campaign did so in their capacity as a senior officer of the company. A total shit show nevertheless.

To the original commenter: sorry this happened to your wife. Hope she’s able to find another job that treats her right. Also congrats on the baby, hoping parenthood makes up for all of this and more. Sending the best of wishes your way.

[–] njovin 16 hours ago

AFAIK in every US state a company can fire you for any reason that’s not protected, and “we told you this was okay but changed our minds” is as good a reason as any in the law’s eyes.

[–] Humorist2290 15 hours ago

In many US states a company can fire you even for protected reasons, and just fabricate a reason that isn't protected. Of course there are examples of people fighting this because it sometimes is a fight worth having, but the vast majority just have to accept being discriminated against and try to find another job.

[–] GormHouj 16 hours ago

I think Montana is the only state not "at-will"

[–] JonathanAgosto 15 hours ago

Puerto Rico is technically not a state, but as part of the US, and counted in the statistics of the (federal) Department of Labor, I would also count it as a _not "at-will"_ state.

[–] SoftTalker 16 hours ago

Correct. If she had something in writing, signed by a person with proper authority in the organization, she might be on stronger footing. But they could just find some other reason, or state "no reason" for her termination, and that's perfectly legal in an at-will employment.

[–] charcircuit 16 hours ago

If I ask my employer if I can start a YouTube channel and then after getting permission I start posting videos that make the company look bad, and showing how awesome competitor products were I wouldn't be surprised if I got fired. I wouldn't be fired for the account but what I did with it.

[–] sheepscreek 8 hours ago

We don’t know if the person did any such thing (bad mouth the company or its products).

However, in the scenario they did, then the company would have grounds to fire them.

[–] avs733 16 hours ago

Well in normal countries…firing them for something they did outside work. In American vernacular, something something free speech.

[–] SoftTalker 16 hours ago

You have the right to free speech. Your employer, like anyone else, has a right to not be associated with what you say.

[–] gavinray 15 hours ago

I'm curious to hear other people's perspectives on why they think they should be illegal?

For example: Suppose you hire someone to help you move furniture.

You can decide you dont like the color of their shoes and tell them to kick rocks.

You dont owe anyone a job, and labor for pay is a contractual agreement, nothing more.

[–] malicka 15 hours ago

Color of shoes is one thing, that’s fair game.

Buuut it’s probably better for society to not kneecap ordinary folks just for trying to run for office. Otherwise, you only get folks in office with deep pockets who can take the hit.

[–] gavinray 15 hours ago

Sure, it's a dick move. But it's important to distinguish "shouldn't" from "legally can't".

Should you be racist? No. Should you call someone fat and ugly? No.

But personal liberty and freedom require we allow people to make choices and have opinions we don't personally agree with.

[–] Sparkle-san 14 hours ago

Personal liberty and freedom also require people to be free from economic coercion so that we can exercise those rights. Corporations have an asymmetric amount of power and we should stop anthropomorphizing them.

[–] latexr 14 hours ago

I recommend Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

https://www.thealmightyguru.com/Wiki/images/2/2e/Paradox_of_...

[–] gavinray 14 hours ago

I think we're on the same page:

  > "a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preserving actions for only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability."

Freedom of speech and self-expression applies to just that: words

If intolerance or hate poses a physical threat, or in any way infringes on the liberty and personal autonomy of others, a line has been crossed and must be swiftly dealt with.

[–] latexr 11 hours ago

I’m guessing you may not be from a minority and/or you live in a safe area? It’s a common occurrence for bigots to lob “words” at those people, in a way that they rightfully do not feel safe. On occasion, it escalates. What this means is that those people, for their own safety, have to act differently than they normally would. For example, gay/lesbian couples often have to pretend to be straight and can’t have a normal night out and display affection without being in danger.

In addition to the possibility of peril, there is also the psychological harm these interactions cause, and the living in fear.

It is only those who are safe who believe words from the intolerant are harmless. The intolerant count on that lack of knowledge to get away with “just asking questions”.

I hope you and your loved ones never have to go through any such interactions, they are harrowing, but I also urge you to have deep discussions with the recipients of them to understand a bit better why we should protect them instead of dismissing their concerns.

[–] westpfelia 15 hours ago

It limits the ability for someone to run for office. Making it only so people who CAN afford to not work to run. Seems unfair.

[–] drewbitt 16 hours ago

Even if an employee has the authority to make a decision, executive leadership should still have the legal right to terminate someone if they disagree with that choice. Let's not make running a business illegal.

[–] thinkindie 16 hours ago

I see this totally wild she even had to ask permission for running for office, or at least from an European perspective.

[–] PyWoody 16 hours ago

I don't understand it from an American perspective. Is this a standard practice in large companies?

[–] SoftTalker 16 hours ago

Political beliefs or views are not a "protected class" in US federal employment law. That said, most employers at least say that they support political participation, but once you start taking public actions it becomes a bit different.

If a person made a large contribution or gave other public support to an extremist candidate, an employer might not want any association with that.

If running for an office is going to take up a significant amount of one's time, such that it might impact availability for work during normal hours, an employer would care about that.

In this specfic case, if she was featuring "I work for Instacart" in any way in her campaign they might care about that.

If she was saying anything inflamatory or controversial, Instacart might not want to be associated with that.

So running for a nonpartisan office such as a local council or school board or similar would normally not be any issue. Anything where party politics feature prominently is going to be riskier.

[–] bombcar 15 hours ago

I believe only California lists "political affiliation" as a protected class.

So most states you can be fired for voting wrong.

[–] thinkindie 16 hours ago

Apparently.

[–] shimman 15 hours ago

It's a standard practice in suppressing democratic norms yes. The US has a long sordid history of the elites absolutely hating when commoners practice democratic beliefs.

Let's not forget that many of our "founding fathers" deeply hated democracy and when speaking of the "democracy problem" of the 1780s in America it was mostly referring to commoners in Massachusetts participating in civic duties.

This tradition has never went away and is still practiced today.

[–] seizethecheese 15 hours ago

I mean, running for office is essentially a full time job right?

It seems totally reasonable to both have a law that protects a citizen’s right to run for office without losing their job, but it also seems reasonable to require some sort of coordination with an employer.

(Knowing nothing about this, it is seems like it should work roughly like an extended jury duty.)

[–] 63stack 16 hours ago

I don't understand why this is getting downvoted, I'm surprised as well

[–] AdmiralAsshat 17 hours ago

How's the lawsuit going?

[–] another_twist 16 hours ago

Wow. Cant you sue for wrongful termination ? I am assuming this was considered and not followed through. What are the legal details here ?

[–] input_sh 15 hours ago

Literally article's description:

> Lisa Vedernikova Khanna, a candidate in Virginia, says in a lawsuit that the mobile shopping giant cited concerns her bid could hurt the company with President Donald Trump.

[–] willio58 16 hours ago

It should be illegal to do what instacart did to your wife.

[–] herval 16 hours ago

They always had a slimy reputation. I interviewed there very early on and two of the engineers interviewing me told me they fire people 1 day from vesting constantly...

[–] outside1234 15 hours ago

In California the courts look very poorly on that, just in case that ever happens to you.

[–] freejazz 15 hours ago

Sounds like your wife has a good case for a lawsuit

[–] thatwasunusual 15 hours ago

And still people will continue to use their services. :(

[–] reticulates 17 hours ago

I am of course very sympathetic to your wife and think it is outrageous that someone should lose their job this way but also given the insane behavior of the Trump administration, it seems like Instacart had no choice. I hope she wins the lawsuit and gets paid out but I can’t hate Instacart for being pragmatic.

[–] jkaplowitz 16 hours ago

> I can’t hate Instacart for being pragmatic

Can you criticize them instead for firing her for something that their Chief Corporate Affairs Officer explicitly gave her permission to do? If it was a matter of pragmatism, they could have declined her request for permission. (One might separately argue about whether this should be a matter of right vs a matter of permission, but regardless, she did seek permission and was granted it.)

[–] afavour 16 hours ago

How many examples do we need of the Trump administration doing some illegal move then getting slapped down by the courts? This would be a slam dunk for DoorDash. That they chose to capitulate instead is damning.

[–] reticulates 16 hours ago

The courts eventually ruling against the administration doesn’t undo the harm caused. A Trump tirade against Instacart could be a death sentence for the business.

[–] skeeter2020 16 hours ago

Based on the ground you're treading I'd be careful with your casual use of "death sentence" when talking about something that is nothing of the sort, but behaviours that are only a few steps from the real thing.

[–] afavour 16 hours ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out

[–] skeeter2020 16 hours ago

>> but also given the insane behavior of the Trump administration, it seems like Instacart had no choice

That's a terrible attitude that's resulted in some of the worst behaviour of capitulation history has ever recorded. What will you call their "pragmatism" when your the target?

[–] 01284a7e 17 hours ago

I can hate for you then.

[–] dmit 16 hours ago

Same.

[–] worldsavior 15 hours ago

> Bad for business to run for office and criticize a Republican incumbent!

I think it's a fully justified reason. If I'm in a senior position and I say something that in someway hurts the company reputation/income, I would be fired. If the company liveness depend on me being fired, the I think the decision is justified.

[–] ishouldstayaway 15 hours ago

Even after being specifically told that running was ok?

[–] worldsavior 12 hours ago

Running doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. I don't say firing is morally correct, but most companies don't work on moral. It's sad that this is the state, but what can you do? Companies are entities that want money, nothing stands in the way.

[–] thatwasunusual 15 hours ago

> I would be fired

Ok, but _should_ you be fired? And - if so - why?