NLRB Advice Memo: Microsoft Lawfully Fired Employees Who Organized Gaza Protest, Says Division of Advice

Microsoft lawfully discharged two employees who organized an on-campus demonstration related to the war in Gaza. The Division concluded the protest's connection to workplace concerns was too tenuous to receive protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In May 2024 Microsoft employees circulated a petition that included demands such as severing Azure contracts with the Israeli government and contained at least one request tied to employee safety and internal communications. Months later, two employees organized an on-campus event at Microsoft's Redmond headquarters that included a walkout, vigil, speaker series, and fundraiser. The event invitation referenced the earlier petition indirectly but did not list workplace demands as objectives.

Microsoft's response and termination

Microsoft security told event organizers the protest could not take place on campus and urged them to move to nearby public property. Organizers did not comply with repeated requests and security directives. Microsoft then terminated the two employees for violating company policy and ignoring security instructions.

Why the Division of Advice said the firings were lawful

The Division analyzed whether the protest constituted protected "concerted activity" under the NLRA. It applied the standard that activity is protected when at least one objective of the activity is to improve employees' terms or conditions. The Division found the protest did not meet that standard because:

• The event invitation only made an indirect reference to the months-old petition and did not state a workplace-related objective for the demonstration.
• The claimed chain of causation—that Microsoft's business relationship with Israel could hurt company finances and thereby indirectly affect employee compensation and benefits—was too attenuated to make the protest about workplace conditions.

Where this leaves employers and employees

The memo signals a narrower interpretation of what political or social protests at work will qualify as protected under the NLRA. Employers may have more latitude to enforce on-campus rules and security directives where organizers cannot show that a genuine workplace demand was an objective of the protest. The Division also noted that General Counsel Crystal Carey disagrees with the Home Depot approach and intends to push the Board to overturn that precedent when the opportunity arises.

• For employee organizers: explicitly tie protest objectives to concrete workplace demands if you want NLRA protection. Indirect references to prior petitions are likely insufficient.
• For employers: enforcing campus policies and security directives may be defensible when a protest's workplace nexus is weak. Document security orders and policy citations carefully.

Corporation, Case 19-CA-364190 (July 10, 2026).