Alabama Man Fired for Controversial Facebook Post, Wins Chance to Sue for Interference

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former law firm employee Wesley Flickinger may proceed. The case centers on a 2020 Facebook post Flickinger made, which led to his resignation from Wainwright, Pope & McMeekin, P.C. (WPM), a Birmingham-based law firm where he had worked for 11 years.

Flickinger’s post, made shortly after the death of George Floyd, read in part:
“Things I think about: If I were a seven-time felon ... would I choose to die in a fentanyl and methamphetamine numbed strangulation if it meant being worshipped in a nationwide funeral and my family receiving millions of dollars?”

After seeing the post, a third party, identified as King, contacted the law firm. Following that communication, WPM told Flickinger he could resign or be fired. He resigned, then filed suit, accusing King of interfering in his employment.

Claims of Interference and a ‘Counterfeit’ Profile

According to Flickinger’s complaint, King shared the Facebook post through a “counterfeit” social media profile that falsely linked Flickinger’s comments to WPM. Flickinger claimed the profile used a professional headshot taken from the firm’s website and included the firm’s name—both of which he said he had never used on his personal social media accounts.

He further alleged that King added other critical posts he had made about the nationwide protests, creating the false appearance that Flickinger was speaking on behalf of WPM.

Court’s Reasoning: Causation and Justification in Question

The court found there was enough evidence to support Flickinger’s claim that King’s actions played a key role in his departure. The justices pointed out that WPM partners were unaware of Flickinger’s social media activity until King contacted them.

One partner said he was “very concerned about [the WPM] firm” and thinking about “damage control” after receiving the post. Another partner admitted he was “upset” and called King shortly after. According to court documents, the firm began looking into Flickinger’s online activity only after receiving the message from King.

The justices concluded that King’s actions could be seen as a “substantial factor” in WPM’s decision to sever ties with Flickinger.

No Defamation, But Interference Claim Stands

Although the court ruled that Flickinger’s defamation claim could not proceed—because he didn’t allege the false association with WPM harmed his reputation in the required legal sense—it found that King’s conduct could still support a claim for intentional interference with a business relationship.

The court also rejected King’s defense under a legal rule that protects people who share “truthful information.” Because Flickinger claimed the post was shared in a misleading context that falsely tied him to WPM’s public image, the justices said that defense did not apply.

Next Steps: Jury to Decide

The court emphasized that whether King’s actions were justified is a question for a jury. Factors to be considered include King’s motives, the nature of his actions, and the impact on Flickinger’s employment.

The ruling allows the case to move forward and signals that in Alabama, third-party interference in employment relationships—even without outright defamation—can lead to legal consequences.