An employee who spoke up against workplace conditions at the American Civil Liberties Union alleges he was fired for voicing his opinion in a filing to the National Labor Relations Board .

“According to a complaint filed with the NLRB and obtained by Bloomberg, the terminated employee had been complaining about wages, hours, and working conditions from 2020 up until May 2022,” Scripps News reported . There are three other open “unfair labor practice” allegations against ACLU affiliates with the NLRB.

The ACLU denies the allegation and reportedly said the employee was “terminated for just cause.”

If the allegations are true, the ACLU acted hypocritically. If the allegations are untrue, or at least the ACLU acted reasonably and lawfully, it still is guilty of hypocrisy. Here’s why.

The civil liberties organization bills itself as a defender of free speech.

That includes, to the group, the right to produce pornography , perform in drag shows , and teach whatever a professor or teacher wants in the classroom without any government oversight and limits, even on taxpayer-funded activity.

The ACLU does not want your child protected from pornography, drag shows, or sexualized books in the classroom or library. But reportedly, it does not want to be subjected to an employee complaining about work conditions. That is too much for it to bear, assuming the allegations are true.

But what if the ACLU was justified in firing the employee? What if he became a nuisance in the workplace and was making defamatory statements? What if he refused to follow the proper channels for raising complaints and instead would send out mass emails complaining about the workplace, instead of working through his boss?

In that case, the ACLU would be hypocritical because it would recognize there are reasonable limits on what should be allowed in the workplace and that guidelines on speech and conduct can be put in place to ensure the proper functioning of an organization so it can fulfill its mission. It would mean the ACLU believes it should not be forced to accept all types of conduct.

That is not its position when it comes to public policy and litigation.

Remember, the ACLU, which says it will defend against government overreach, opposed Jack Phillips when he said he did not want to bake a cake that would celebrate a same-sex wedding. It wanted the government to seize his assets and give them to the aggrieved parties.

The same ACLU was not content with a federal “right” to abortion pre-Dobbs. It wanted to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions, despite the Catholic Church’s stance on the sanctity of human life.

As mentioned, the group has also been at the forefront of fighting red state laws that place limits on the availability of pornographic books in the classroom and library, as well as legislation to ensure taxpayer-funded schools teach factual information that does not single people out on the basis of their race.

So if the ACLU is telling the truth and its management was merited in firing an employee, it shows that the group understands speech and conduct can be regulated in some fashion to ensure order.

That seems to be the position of states, such as Florida, that support open debate and academic freedom in universities but also want to right the ship and ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to push racial grievances and single out students on the basis of their race.

But if the ACLU did fire someone for speaking his mind, it would not be the first time the group practiced hypocrisy .

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.