And guess who got his photo on the wall twenty minutes later?

publicly fired simply for what the owner thinks of as personality flaws?

There is a lot unclear...

The case she would have is if she were fired because she brought in a lawyer to investigate her claim about being paid less because she is a woman.

Think progress opines on some possible caveats:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not simply ban employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," it also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about alleged discrimination......

.....Two caveats should be noted. The first is that, last year, the five conservative Supreme Court justices significantly weakened federal anti-retaliation law in a case known as University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Nassar eliminated what are known as "mixed motive" retaliation claims -- that is, claims where unlawful retaliation is one of several factors driving an adverse action against an employee. After Nassar, Abramson would have to show that she would not have been fired but for the fact that she complained about alleged discrimination. Given the myriad of other possible reasons why she may have been let go, this could be a difficult hurdle for her to clear.

The second caveat is that Abramson reportedly signed a settlement agreement with the New York Times, according to the Times itself. Though the details of this agreement are as yet unknown, it is likely that, at the very least, she was given some amount of severance pay in return for agreeing to waive any legal claims she might have against the Times. If this is the case, then Abramson would be unable to bring a successful lawsuit even if she did experience unlawful discrimination.

Charlie Pierce:

The country is turning around on the Affordable Care Act to the point where the Republicans are starting to bail on repealing it as a 2014 campaign issue, and to the point where Republican governors with delusions of grandeur, like Mike Pence in Indiana, are trying to find a piece of it they can call their own. And yet here's Michelle Nunn, already pitching to be awarded the Blanche Lincoln Memorial Empty Suit Of Centrism before she's even elected. How is this supposed to help anything? Nunn remains preferable to the antic Chronic Ward out of which the Republicans will choose their candidate, but she's worth keeping an eye on anyway. Her old man, Sam Nunn, was one of the DLC Democrats who had a sweet tooth for neocon fantasies; back then, they were called "Scoop Jackson Democrats," named for the senator from Washington who did very little of note except look out for the interests of Boeing.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's nomination of Michael Boggs to serve on the federal bench is causing members of the Congressional Black Caucus to turn on each other and sparking rare criticism of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a revered civil rights icon.

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) unleashed on Lewis on Sunday night after Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) indicated earlier in the day that she spoke to Lewis and he signaled support for Boggs' inclusion in a package deal of judicial nominees that Obama agreed to with Georgia's Republican senators. A former Georgia state legislator, Boggs has come under fire from progressive groups over his votes to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, to keep the Confederate insignia on the Georgia state flag and to require doctors who perform abortions to post online their names and the number of abortions they performed.

"John Lewis has betrayed Georgia if this is his new position," Scott told The Huffington Post in a statement. "He is speaking for the White House and not women, African-Americans or gays with this new position, and he has turned his back on his own supporters."
----
In the meantime, key senators have said their final decision on Boggs will be shaped by private conversations they have with Lewis. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Feinstein are among them, though Reid has already said flatly that he opposes Boggs and hinted that he may not even let him get a floor vote. Durbin and Feinstein have also raised concerns with him.

...the White House takes issue with Scott's accusations, noting the Senate's unofficial "blue-slip" rule where a single senator can hold up judicial nominations.

In order to fill six open seats on the federal court level, Obama agreed to include Boggs and Cohen.

"The blue-slip rule for judicial nominees has been more problematic than the filibuster because it can act as a silent, unaccountable veto. But given this constraint, our choice is clear: do we work with Republican senators to find a compromise or should we leave the seats vacant? We believe it would be grossly irresponsible for the president to leave these seats vacant," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

Link

More:

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who tracks the judicial nominations, said the Obama administration needs to move more aggressively to fill vacancies. Of the country's 858 appeals and district court judgeships, 101 are unfilled, he said.
"The Northern District of Georgia is one of the worst-case scenarios in the country," Tobias said

It has not been easy to get nominations cleared by the Obama administration because Georgia has no senators who are members of the same political party as the president, Darden said last week.

link

Under the proposed deal, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) would agree to stop blocking attorney Jill Pryor's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit -- a nomination that they have effectively held up for well over 1000 days. In return, Obama would nominate a George H.W. Bush-appointed judge -- Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia -- to the other open seat on the Eleventh Circuit, creating a fourth vacancy on this federal trial court. Chambliss and Isakson would then be allowed to select three of the four attorneys named to these seats.

Ultimately, if the White House agrees to this GOP-friendly bargain, it will likely be because of an absurd Senate practice that gives individual senators veto power over judicial nominees. Under the Senate's "blue slip" rules -- an anachronistic process that allows senators to veto nominees from their state -- the state of Georgia is allocated certain seats on the Eleventh Circuit and Chambliss and Isakson have unilateral authority to block any nominees to those seats. Moreover, they are also empowered to block any nominee to a district court in Georgia. Though this process is rooted in a patronage system that no longer exists, Senate Democrats insist upon maintaining it. This Georgia deal could be the result.