A new case in front of labor regulators could answer a question many workers might have contemplated. Can your employer fire you for speaking out against the CEO?
During a hearing this month, the National Labor Relations Board—the federal agency tasked with enforcing labor law—weighed in on a case involving software company Atlassian, which reportedly fired an engineer in 2023 for criticizing the CEO over a restructuring plan that led to job losses. The NLRB argued that Atlassian had illegally fired the employee, Bloomberg reported this week, after obtaining a transcript of the hearing through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The employee in question, Denise Unterwurzacher, had been let go after a heated exchange over an announcement about a major “re-leveling” plan that would cut headcount and demote a number of employees. On an “ask me anything” meeting with employees, leadership had suggested that the restructuring would only affect a handful of employees; when employees disagreed with that framing, it led to Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes “angrily interjecting to tell off the people who were complaining,” according to Bloomberg.
To add insult to injury, Cannon-Brookes had joined the meeting from the headquarters of an NBA team that he co-owned. Employees shared their discontent with his comments in an internal Slack channel —dubbed “Outrage Notification”—where Unterwurzacher chimed in.
“What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,” she quipped. She was fired not long after, and Atlassian claimed she had “engaged in acrimonious communications and ad hominem attacks against teammates and colleagues.”
NLRB attorney Colton Puckett argued in the hearing that this kind of speech was protected under U.S. labor law, which allows employees to protest their working conditions—and “they’re allowed to do so in ways their bosses might not like,” Puckett noted.
Part of the NLRB’s argument was that Unterwurzacher’s conduct was in line with the company’s culture of transparency. Atlassian has waxed poetic about its “Open Company, No Bullshit” philosophy, which is touted as one of its core values on the company’s website: “Openness is root level for us. Information is open internally by default and sharing is a first principle. And we understand that speaking your mind requires equal parts brains (what to say), thoughtfulness (when to say it), and caring (how it’s said).” In interviews, Cannon-Brookes has talked about how “we call a spade a spade, and we want everybody inside the business to do that.”
Atlassian, however, posited that Unterwurzacher’s comments did not fit the bill—and therefore should not be legally protected. “While employees are encouraged to speak up about workplace issues, they must do so in a manner that remains professional and respectful, as the law does not protect conduct that is abusive or gratuitously insulting,” Atlassian attorney Troy Valdez said during the hearing.
“Just because it was a CEO doesn’t excuse the conduct,” Valdez added. “It was an irrelevant personal attack and insult directed at a colleague, essentially calling him a ‘rich jerk.’” In an email to Bloomberg, Unterwurzacher denied that she had characterized the CEO as a rich jerk. “My goal has always been to support my coworkers and to encourage leadership to approach these changes, and the ways they are communicated, with greater understanding and empathy,” she said. (When reached for comment by Fast Company, Atlassian declined to comment, given this is an individual employee matter.)
It’s not clear how the case might proceed: If the case is not settled, a ruling by the judge could be appealed to federal court. While the NLRB can order employers to reinstate employees with backpay, they cannot compel them to take further action or secure punitive damages.
The case is also an interesting test of how the NLRB will rule under Trump, now that the agency has restored a quorum and Republican majority. The agency had been hamstrung after Trump ousted former board member Gwynne Wilcox in early 2025, which left the NLRB without a quorum and unable to issue decisions; that changed in December, when Trump’s new nominees were confirmed. As is often the case, the new NLRB will likely curb protections for workers and unions, undoing some of the agency’s pro-labor actions under the Biden administration.
But beyond the implications for labor law, the NLRB’s response to this case seems to be a bit of a corrective in a rather employer-friendly environment. Between the economic environment and the rise of generative AI, workers have ceded power in the years since the pandemic—and layoffs are piling up across corporate America, with many business leaders laying blame on AI. Even companies like Atlassian that seem to prize a culture of transparency seem to be leading differently, and cracking down on employees who are critical of leadership. Much like its peers in the tech industry, Atlassian is also making serious cuts to its workforce: Just this month, the company disclosed plans to slash headcount by 10%, which impacted about 1,600 employees.
As CEOs and executives continue to cut jobs—and, at least in some cases, use AI as a convenient scapegoat—Unterwurzacher’s case could be a small win for workers who are agitating for them to lead with more compassion.