A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Can participating in Day Without Women strike result in being fired from work?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Last week’s “Day Without Women” campaign included a number of activities to increase awareness and support for women’s rights issues. One of the events was a strike. Supporters of the cause were encouraged to take a day off of work – paid or unpaid – in order to show by absence how valuable women are in the marketplace.

But what happens when employers retaliate against their employees for leaving work without permission? Can your employer fire you, for example? Or reduce your pay?

Know Your Rights

In the workplace, employees have a right to strike, but this is a general rule and not an absolute. Findlaw.com explains the conditions of strikes protected by law and those for which employers are allowed to fire their employees.

If you have a no-strike clause on your employment contract or if the strike was violent in nature, your employer does have the right to fire you for engaging in a strike. However, in most cases, you have the right to strike without retaliation from your employers.

Retaliation can include firing, reducing pay, disciplinary actions and other actions meant to punish you for your actions. As a general matter, it is illegal for employers to engage in retaliation against their employees for engaging in legal behavior.

If your employer has retaliated against you for participating in the “Day Without Women” strike or any other strike, it is important to know your rights. Talk with an experienced employment law attorney who can help you understand whether you have a case and can fight to protect your rights in the workplace.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.