Apparently the station has a website where viewers can express their opinions. But they have a strict rule that station staff is not to respond to any comments. They want to avoid arguing with viewers.
Rhonda Lee responded and was warned to stop. She continued to respond and was fired. She is black and cuts her hair completely off. So, when comments come in from viewers like 'you should wear a wig' she gets mad and responds.
Everyone is human. When she responded, that was human. They did not fire her at that point. She was warned and she continued to violate the policy.
The comments were wrong. In my opinion, the station should have taken them down. They didn't. Failing that, they should have let her respond (and I haven't read her responses - were they respectful defenses of her position, or did she stoop to the level of the attacks?), in a calm measured way. They didn't. It's their station, their business and their "Facebook" (whatever that is).
So, is it B$? Yes. Did they have a right to fire her? Yes, for violation of policy after being warned. She could have resigned in protest after they warned her against responding.
A lot of wrong to go around, but - in a free society, we have to balance freedom of speech, obligation to follow reasonable (although disagreeable, in this case) company policy and regulations, right to defend oneself from attacks, etc.
It would be awkward to sue the station for wrongful termination because that's what she did in her last job with an Austin station and that lawsuit comes up in Jan.
One never has to explain doing the right things all the time. If both suits are valid, should be no problem. If either or both are specious? Could be a problem.
The boy who cried wolf was right the last time, too. He didn't get any "less" eaten.