E-Discovery Law Review : Electronic Discovery Lawyers & Attorneys : Cozen O'Connor Law Firm : Data Preservation & E-Discovery Disputes

Are you tired of the press surrounding the Steven Slater incident with his employer, Jet Blue?   The coverage of Mr. Slater’s airplane exit due to apparent stress, and becoming fed up with an airline passenger, has been nothing short of remarkable.   Even his employer acknowledged the craziness of the situation through a blog post on its own web site: “It wouldn’t be fair for us to point out the absurdities in other corners of the industry without acknowledging when it’s about us.” And clearly, the final stanza of that employment sonata was never really in doubt.

However, the challenging cases are the ones that are not so extreme. It is unlikely that one of your employees will be opening the cabin door to your office at 30,000 feet.   One can dismiss the Slater story as just the latest introduction to America’s new reality show star, and be thankful that no one really got hurt.   Or, it can be a good lesson for those interested in social media and employment law. 

In other words, it is just as possible that an employee will express some acute stress or anger in a different way than Mr. Slater did.   For example, an employee can express anger or outrage generally or toward a particular co-worker in a blog post, on a social networking site, or a company’s intranet.   The stress caused by the troubled economy, or even a discrete tragic event such as 9/11, may lead to an increase in the number of employees whose productivity diminishes, and who may find social media as an easy and available outlet.   Additionally, increased stress coupled with the significant time spent in the office could provide an inappropriate portal to harassment or violence in the workplace.   If and when an employer becomes aware of an employee’s expression through social media, some measure of care should be taken before the employee’s words (and, perhaps the employee) are summarily dismissed.

It is readily acknowledged that employers do not have to provide a stress-free work environment.   Moreover, claims that one suffers from stress due to the personality of a particular supervisor have not been well-received by courts. However, under statutes such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (and their state and local counterparts), stress-related conditions and their manifestations may be protected either as a “serious health condition” or a “disability”, depending on their nature and severity, thereby thrusting the employer into a necessary course of action. 

Indeed, effective January 1, 2009, the ADA Amendments Act requires that the term disability “be construed broadly,” thus potentially affording greater rights to a greater number of employees.   This year alone saw an increase in stress-related claims. For example, in Pacenza v. IBM Corp., a terminated employee claimed he had a disability (post traumatic stress disorder) which manifested itself in, among other things, a compulsion to look at sexually explicit pictures on the Internet at work.   In Millea v. Metro-North Railroad Co., a court held that a jury properly found that an employee with a history of post traumatic stress disorder was entitled to rights under the FMLA after suffering an intense panic attack from a threatening call received from a supervisor.

Employer Take Away: What should every employer take away from this development?  

            (1)        Be aware of signs that an employee may be engaging in behavior or expression that could be considered protected under the law.   Employers are not required to be mind readers, and the obligation will be on the employee in most cases to provide adequate notice to the employer of a particular condition and the need for some response or assistance from the employer. However, social media has afforded employees a greater microphone for expression and greater security “behind the computer”, when they might not have expressed similar feelings in a personal, one-on-one setting.   Employers should have adequate policies in place, and should effectively train supervisors and managers to understand the implications of certain employee expression and the need to consider how the company should respond.

            (2)        Do not quickly dismiss employee expression through social media as being that of a “rogue” employee, or an employee who may just be letting off harmless steam on that particular day.   Employers, and particularly their supervisors and managers, need to understand what to look for, what their legal obligations may be, and the consequences of not following the law. Notwithstanding what may appear at first blush to be someone looking for his or her 15 minutes in the spotlight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

Can an employer lawfully monitor personal e-mail messages sent by an employee through the employee’s personal, password-protected web-based account if such messages are sent using the employer’s computer?    Court decisions over the past few months suggest problems for employers who attempt to do so, though the decisions do suggest a recommended course of action for employers to avoid potential exposure.

To be clear:  The issue at the moment is not whether an employer can monitor communications sent or received using the company’s e-mail over the company’s computer system.   At the moment, the discussion involves personal e-mails sent through a personal (non-company) e-mail account, albeit accessed or sent on a company’s computer system. Two cases this summer found that an employee does not automatically waive all rights in all cases simply because he or she communicates using an employer’s computer. 

On July 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the case of Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, and held that a public school teacher’s personal e-mails are not necessarily deemed to be government “records” under the Public Records Law merely because they may have been sent and received on computer systems owned by the government, if the messages are not related to a governmental function.   Five days later, on July 21, 2010, a California appellate court held in Mimi Shanahan v. Superior Court that a bank executive did not waive his right to privacy of a confidential document when he e-mailed it to his personal secretary. The court there noted that the executive had given the document to his one assigned secretary in confidence to print or proofread, as opposed to sharing it generally and openly with a secretary pool or the secretary of another employee.

Critical to the outcome of these cases is the precise nature of an employer’s communicated policy, and the extent to which the employee had an expectation of privacy in the e-mail being sent.   Recent decisions in New Jersey and New York highlight the importance of the employer’s particular policy. For example, on March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a decision in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. that also landed on the side of the employee’s privacy rights. In Stengart, the employee sent e-mail messages to an attorney over a work-issued laptop computer, though using the employee’s personal web-based and password-protected account.   The court found that the employee did not waive the attorney-client privilege under those circumstances, relying on the employer’s policy:

[T]he policy does not address the use of personal, web-based e-mail accounts accessed through company equipment. It does not address personal accounts at all. Nor does it warn employees that the contents of e-mails sent via personal accounts can be forensically retrieved and read by the company. Indeed, in acknowledging that occasional personal use of e-mail is permitted, the policy created doubt about whether those e-mails are company or private property.

One can contrast that New Jersey opinion with the 2007 decision by the New York County Supreme Court in Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center, Inc., where a physician exchanged e-mail with an attorney over the hospital’s computer system. The court held that the employee did waiver the attorney-client privilege, finding that the confidential nature of the communications no longer existed.   In stark contrast to the policy in Stengart, the employer’s policy in Scott apparently prohibited all personal use of e-mail and at the same time expressly provided for employer monitoring.

Employer Take Away: What should every employer take away from this development?  As these recent cases suggest, the mere fact that an employee communicates through a personal e-mail account using a company-owned system does not by itself eliminate all expectation of privacy to which the employee is entitled.    Thus, employers should at a minimum:

            (1)        Make sure to understand and consider the law in the particular jurisdiction in which the employer operates its business to determine whether, and to what extent, searching or monitoring employee electronic communications may expose the employer to liability; and

            (2)        Create effective policies that account for potential social media permutations that may occur, and reduce employee privacy expectations by obtaining appropriate employee acknowledgments that expressly recognize the employer’s right to monitor and retrieve even personal web sites and messages accessed through company-owned systems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

We all spend a lot of time analyzing legal developments occurring in the recent past, as well as those that have just happened.   Often neglected is the anticipation of where the legal trend will be taking us in the months and years to come.   You are now in the right place.

Nostradamus stated not so recently, “I do but make bold to predict (not that I guarantee the slightest thing at all[.])” (Open letter to Privy Councillor (later Chancellor) Birague, 15 June 1566, from Lemesurier, Peter, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003). With that same caveat, here are the Top 5 issues that are expected to have a greater impact on employers as we move forward and litigation begins to catch up to the increased use of social media:

            1.         Privacy claims and the ability to regulate off-duty activities. Employers will continue to have unprecedented access to information about what employees are doing on their own time – their weekend musings, organizational affiliations, recreational and political activities, and off-duty blog posts.   Yet, most states (like New York) have some form of “legal activities law” that prohibits employers from taking certain action based on many of those categories of information. A key inquiry will ultimately become whether there is a nexus between the employee’s activity and the employee’s ability to perform his or her job. 

Likewise, there will be an increase in privacy-related claims as employers continue to find ways and reasons to monitor employee communications on company systems. One such claim that will become more prevalent relates to employer monitoring of, and access to, private or attorney-client communications through a non-company source over a company-owned system.   For example, an employer gaining access to an employee’s e-mails sent through a private AOL account, albeit on the company’s computer system. Employers must ensure that they protect themselves, for example, through appropriate employee-signed documents.

            2.         Competition and trade secret disclosure. Employees will continue to use social media to the detriment of employers. Among the litigated questions that will likely increase are: Whether an informal web-based chat about a company’s development or expansion plans constitutes an improper disclosure of an employer’s trade secrets or other confidential information? Or, whether employees who post credentials, change of job notices, and job experiences on web sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook are violating non-compete or non-solicitation agreements?

            3.         Employer liability to third parties.   More third parties will become affected by employee use of social media and improved technology. This will lead to an increase in claims that an employer should be vicariously liable for an employee’s acts. For example, defamatory statements by an employee about another individual or company may expose an employer to litigation. Similarly, an employee who causes an accident by texting while driving, or engaging in other forms of social media expression while driving, when that employee is using a company-owned phone or device, may also prompt a claim against an employer. As in the other cases described above, employers should maintain appropriate policies.

            4.         Union avoidance.   The use of social media will not only increase on an individual basis, but will also become a greater outlet for collective expression. As groups form and employees have an easier way to organize, employers must be sensitive to the proscriptions contained in the law against taking certain action in some cases against employees who engage in concerted action.

            5.         Avatar.   No, not the James Cameron movie. Avatars are virtual characters that interact with each other online in virtual worlds, where the avatars sleep, eat, work and even have sexual relationships. As more employees spend more downtime in these virtual worlds (either transacting business or engaging in personal relationships), potential liability can exist for employers when the virtual becomes real, such as, for example, if supervisory and subordinate avatars are engaging in certain relationships and role playing that ultimately becomes a sexual harassment claim in the “real world.” 

Employer Take Away: What should every employer take away from this development? Employers should consider and understand the potential for liability exposure in these 5 areas moving forward, and consider the appropriate ways to be pro-active in order to remain ahead of the social media forecast.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

Your employee is being paid millions of dollars each year to perform his job. Right in the middle of today’s tasks, as he is about to receive instruction from his supervisor, your employee takes out his cell phone and posts a “tweet” on his feelings about his performance to all of his friends who have signed up to follow his twitter board.    Would you have a problem with that?

At least two employers did.   News surfaced last week that Eric Mangini, head coach of the NFL’s Cleveland Browns, has threatened to fine players for tweeting about events at training camp, and particularly during team meetings. This on the heels of the well-publicized action taken last year by the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks. In that case, Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva apparently posted a message to his Twitter feed from his cell phone when he went into the locker room at halftime of a basketball game against the Boston Celtics.    According to reports, the tweet that was posted from Villanueva’s “CV31” screen name read: “In da locker room, snuck to post my twitt. We’re playing the Celtics, tie ball game at da half. Coach wants more toughness. I gotta step up.”

The good news is that Villanueva apparently stepped up, scoring a team-high 19 points to help the Bucks beat the Boston Celtics that afternoon. As for the Browns, well, we’ll see. However, like many employment law issues, the concern is not for the period in which everyone is winning; rather, the key is to address a potential problem before the bad times attendant to a losing streak risk damage to the entire team.

Twitter continues to dominate the popular culture, allowing users to post microblogs from a cell phone at the pace of an instant message, and has become a popular site for celebrities in the sports and entertainment world who have a following of gaggle that hang on to the tweeter’s every move and thought.   Twitter’s growth can be attributable to the ease in posting and reading the messages, as well as the fact that such posting and reading can be done anywhere one may be standing with a cell phone.

And therein lies the problem.   The implications of an NFL or NBA star’s use of Twitter apply equally to your employees. Your company might not be a sports franchise, and your office may not consist of a locker room.   However, your company should consider the implications of social networking sites like Twitter on your workplace and your employees.

Employer Take Away – What should every employer take away from this development?    One could chalk up these stories to simply more examples of young athletes being immature.   Or, they can serve to demonstrate, by extension, the realities of today’s technology and the expanding universe of modes of communication that, while increasing our ability to connect with others around the world, increase the risks right there in the four walls of your company’s office.

                        (1)        Recognize the effect that increased social networking has on employee productivity.   Even Milwaukee Bucks’ head coach recognized the productivity dilemma, when he commented at the time that “…anything that gives the impression that we’re not serious and focused at all times is not the correct way we want to go about our business.” While employers try to keep to the old adage that a “happy employee is a productive employee,” there should be limits to acceptable forms of happiness when they come at the expense of productivity because your employee is spending countless hours posting tweets when he should be performing his or her job duties.

                        While it is clearly more difficult to monitor an employee’s use of twitter on a personal cell phone that is not synchronized with the company’s systems, you should at the very least create a policy that prohibits excessive use of personal, social networking sites while on company time.    With regard to the use of social networking sites more generally, particularly those that are used from the company’s computers, you should be mindful of the applicable laws that govern an employer’s monitoring of employee activity.   Employers can, however, limit exposure under these laws, and in fact eliminate any reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the employee, if employees are required to sign appropriately-worded documents acknowledging and consenting to the company’s monitoring policies.

                        (2)        Be mindful of the lack of control your company has over the use of sites such as Twitter.    In the good old days, one only had to worry about the informal musings of an employee on the rapid-fire system we once knew as “e-mail”. Now, there is an increased potential for workplace harassment that comes with the even great informality of Twitter.    There is a real concern over the fact that twitter posts from a personal cell phone may not be part of the company’s systems, and thus the company may not have the same ability to control or capture and save messages in the same way it can with e-mail, or even with instant messages that are delivered through the company’s computer system. Employers must nevertheless be sure that their harassment policies address the potential issues that arise in the context of inappropriate harassment and discrimination through the use of social networking sites, and be equally vigilant when responding to a complaint arising from communications made on those sites. 

                        (3)        Prevent employees from intentionally or inadvertently disclosing confidential or proprietary information due to the informal nature of communications on sites such as Twitter.   Again, it is critical for your company to make sure it has policies in place regarding the use and disclosure of company information, and that those policies specifically address the concerns attendant to these new social networking sites. 

                        (4)        Consider restrictions.   The trend toward making it easier for employees to engage in communications quicker and from anywhere in the world, increases the possibility that such employees claim to be “working” 24/7 while engaging in those communications. For example, even if your company does not authorize a non-exempt employee to work overtime, an employee must still be paid for hours worked (although a company certainly can discipline an employee for performing unauthorized overtime).    Without the proper policies in place, and without the appropriate measures taken to ensure that the company can control and stay on top of the number of hours worked by all non-exempt employees, the potential for exposure exists under federal and state wage payment laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

Although the imposition of sanctions for misconduct involving electronic discovery continues to gain momentum, it is still rare that courts turn to the ultimate sanction: the dismissal of a lawsuit. One plaintiff in an Illinois tort case left the court with little choice. In Peal v. Lee, et al., 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 760 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. July 30, 2010), the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit due to the plaintiff having intentionally destroyed over 20,000 computer files the day before the defendants’ expert was to inspect the computer.

The plaintiff ice skating instructor sued his employer and others for, among other things, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the Complaint alleged that the tortious conduct occurred in 2005, the defendants were in possession of letters that the plaintiff had submitted to the defendants in 2004 complaining of the same conduct. As a result, the defendants moved to dismiss under the statute of limitations, but the court refused to do so because the plaintiff denied authoring those documents.

Fast forward to discovery: The defendants sought to obtain evidence confirming that the plaintiff had written those 2004 letters. After the plaintiff violated a court order requiring that he produce his computer, the court again ordered that the computer be produced by April 10, 2009. The defendants’ forensic expert would later uncover that, on April 9, 2009, the plaintiff used four different data “wiping” programs to permanently delete data from the hard drive, and that before that date, the plaintiff had used three other such programs. This, notwithstanding that his attorney had sent him defense counsel’s electronic discovery preservation letter.

The defendants wisely moved to dismiss the case because of spoliation. To say the least, the trial court was not humored by the plaintiff’s explanation that he had downloaded “cleaning programs” to remove viruses on his computer. After an evidentiary hearing, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The appellate court found “no evidence” showing that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case. The court’s disdain for the plaintiff’s misconduct was evident, and perhaps best reflected in its colorful description of plaintiff’s arguments: “completely disingenuous,” “nervy,” “hollow,” “patently untruthful,” and “pure pettifoggery.” The plaintiff claimed he did not act in bad faith; the court responded that the plaintiff’s conduct is “the personification of bad faith.”

Few can be surprised by the trial court’s dismissal and the appellate court’s biting affirmance given the plaintiff’s shocking conduct. Still, this case demonstrates that courts can and will resort to the sanction of all sanctions when a party takes such nefarious steps to thwart the discovery process and more generally to undermine the integrity of the judicial system.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

                        One of the difficult things to predict with regard to the use of social media in the employment setting continues to be the extent to which traditional legal claims apply equally to new social media outlets.   We continue to advise employers that it is imperative to ensure that care is also taken to create policies and train employees on the use of social media in and out of the office setting, and not to let the informality and ease of the Internet lull employers into a false sense of security.   On July 22, 2010, a New York Supreme Court Judge applied the tort of defamation to statements on Facebook in a case that offers an important message to employers.

                        The case of Finkel v. Dauber (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County) centered on statements posted by a Facebook group known as “90 Cents Short of a Dollar.” Plaintiff alleged that she was defamed by the group’s postings that stated “unbeknownst to many, [plaintiff] acquired AIDS while on a cruise to Africa” and then “persisted to screw a baboon which caused the epidemic to spread.”   The postings further defamed plaintiff, she alleged, by stating “[w]hile in Africa she was seen fucking a horse.”   And other intelligent banter.

                        The court first acknowledged that even posts on a social networking site can be subject to the elements of a legal claim for defamation. Thus, an aggrieved individual must identify, among other things, a false “statement of fact” that was published without authorization by the subject of the statement. However, the court in Finkel noted that “’rhetorical hyperbole’ or ‘vigorous epithet’ will not suffice.” In determining whether liability lies, “context is key” and one must weigh the “broader social context or setting surrounding the communication[.]”   Under that backdrop, the court in Finkel ultimately dismissed plaintiff’s defamation claim, stating:

“A reasonable reader, given the overall context of the posts, simply would not believe that the plaintiff contracted AIDS by having sex with a horse or a baboon or that she contracted AIDS from a male prostitute who also gave her crabs and syphilis, or that having contracted sexually transmitted diseases in such a manner she morphed into the devil.   Taken together, the statements can only be read as puerile attempts by adolescents to outdo each other. While the posts display an utter lack of taste and propriety, they do not constitute statements of fact.”

                        Yes, this may be an extreme case. And the ultimate result of Finkel is obviously a good one for the party defending the claim of liability. But do you want to take the chance in the next case by not being proactive in today’s social media world?    Even though plaintiff here did not prevail, I think the message is clear.  

Employer Take Away – What should every employer take away from this development?

(1)       Informality is not a defense. Although context will be one factor to consider, the fact that statements are made or conduct occurs on a more informal social networking site or blog does not insulate the statements or conduct from potential liability. Employers must make sure that their written policies and employee training emphasize that informality can breed an increased risk of liability for the company, and that traditional legal theories (and employment prohibitions) apply equally to web-based statements and conduct.

(2)        Ease is not a defense either.   The ease with which employers and employees alike may converse, obtain information, and share private experiences does not mean that “old rules” do not still apply. It is still discrimination to take action because of one’s pregnancy or one’s participation in a gay and lesbian organization, even if the employer only learned that information from reading a profile page. Just as it still may be sexual harassment if the offending chatter took place on a Facebook “wall-to-wall”.   Employment policies and practices must consider whether employment-related decisions should be based, in whole or in part, on information obtained through social media sites in the first place, and, if so, which company officials should be involved in the information gathering and decision making processes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

                        Many commentators – including us – have analyzed and described the potential perils to employers in conjunction with the use of social media.   The focus of many of those discussions has been centered on issues such as potential liability for discrimination, alleged violation of privacy rights, and the likelihood of unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential or proprietary information.

                        However, on December 1, 2009, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) revised its rules pertaining to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising in a manner that has a direct impact on the use of social media by businesses and their employees.    The new FTC rules highlight the need for employers to understand the need to pay attention to what their employees do and say as it may relate to the products and services offered to the general public, and to create and effectively communicate workplace policies on social media use.

                        The purpose of the FTC’s new rules is to apply the use of advertising endorsements to Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits certain unfair and deceptive practices in commerce.    An “endorsement” is defined by the FTC’s rules to include:

“any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.”   

                      The FTC’s rules should be considered by any company that has employees who may be blogging opinions about the company’s products or services. An employer can face potential liability for opinions offered by its employees, even if the opinions are not authorized or sponsored by the company in the first instance.   According to the FTC’s rules, any endorsements “must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser,” and “many not convey any express or implied representation that would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser.”   Under these regulations, the company would be the “advertiser” and an employee blogger would be an “endorser.”   In fact, the rules specifically address blogging and the duty to monitor blogging when an individual (particularly those paid) are speaking about the company’s products or services:

“In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.”

                    Beyond the general considerations set forth, the FTC’s rules generally address (i) endorsements by consumers, experts, and organizations, and (ii) disclosure of relationships between the endorser and the advertiser of the product or service.    Thus, certain guidelines must be followed when one is deemed to be a consumer speaking about the performance of a product or service, as well as when one holds himself or herself out to be an “expert” in the particular field discussed, as it relates to some aspect of a product or service such as quality, price, or uniqueness.   Again, an employee discussing any aspect of the employer’s products or services may fall within the reach of the FTC’s guidelines.

                    Finally, the FTC’s rules provide that any individual who is endorsing a product or service, and who also has a “connection” with the seller of the product or service, must disclose that connection. Thus, for example, an employee who provides testimonials about her employer’s products would need to disclose the fact that she is an employee of the company.  

Employer Take Away – What should every employer take away from this development?

(1)       In light of the FTC’s rules, employers should consider and devise a strategy addressing the extent to which they may want employees to communicate with the general public over the Internet about their products and services, or the extent to which such communications are likely to occur even without knowledge or authorization, given the nature of particular employees’ roles.

(2)        It is also imperative that employers adopt an appropriate policy generally on social media use by their employees, and communicate and train employees on those policies. Such policies should include, at a minimum, the types of posts and statements that are inappropriate and unacceptable, prohibitions on certain company- and client-related disclosures, and appropriate direction for disclosing the employee’s relationship with the company. Maintaining effective policies will minimize the risk of potential liability for statements made by employees about the employer’s products and services through blogs and other forms of social media.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

                         The circumstances surrounding the forced resignation this month of Shirley Sherrod from the United States Department of Agriculture highlights both the positives and the perils of making employment-based decisions based on information obtained from the Web.

                        We all know that Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign after a blogger posted limited excerpts of a speech she gave to the NAACP.   Those excerpts depicted her as a racist, some argued, resulting in various government and non-government officials calling for her to leave her post. However, once the full video was reviewed, it became clear that what Ms. Sherrod had been describing to the NAACP was, in fact, reflective of just the opposite; that her story was an example of one who moved beyond race when it came to helping someone in need.   The backlash continues, as many in the current administration have gone so far as to offer her a new job in the Department.

                        Employers – both private and public - should heed this valuable lesson. We are all more than aware of the plethora of information that can be obtained about current employees, and even inquiring job applicants.   As easy as it is to get this information, it is critical that employers do not fall into the lazy trap in order to avoid potential liability.   For one, employers may learn more than they really need to know (or should know) about lawful activities in which current or potential employees are engaging, as well as about organizations in which they are active or personal characteristics that are not otherwise apparent from a resume or “normal” job interview.  

                        Second, the information obtained, and relied upon for a particular employment-related decision, may be, simply, wrong.   Perhaps only an edited excerpt of a larger source of information was obtained, or perhaps the subject of the information turns out to be an individual other than the current or potential employee. Relying on that information as the basis for an adverse job action is, at best, embarrassing, and, at worst, a potential liability exposure risk.

Employer Take Away – What should every employer take away from this development?

(1) Make sure you know exactly what you are looking for when it comes to seeking Web information about a current or potential employee, and that you have assigned the appropriate individual to obtain that information at the right time in the decision-making process.

(2) Make sure any employment-related decision resulting from Web-based information is fully supported and documented.   Do not let the informalities and ease of the Internet lull you into a failure to do your due diligence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

Undeniably, the nature of electronic communications and electronic data retention has dramatically increased the scope and complexity of discovery.  However, it has also made it increasingly simple for opposing parties to identify spoliation and non-compliance with discovery orders.  More often than not, the parties have exchanged electronic correspondence and documents prior to litigation.  When that information is not produced during discovery, one party can easily identify information that has been withheld and seek sanctions for spoliation. 

For instance, the defendant in In re A&M Florida Properties II, LLC et al., v. American Federated Title Corp., Bkrtcy. No. 09-15173, 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010) requested that the plaintiffs produce documents related to an important defense raised in response to plaintiffs’ claims.  Among the documents requested were a series of emails that the defendant believed would reveal important facts about what the plaintiffs knew and when.  The defendant was confident that these emails existed because it possessed its own copies of certain emails sent by the defendant to the plaintiffs.  Surprisingly, when the plaintiffs responded to the defendant’s request, the emails the defendant was already aware of and expected to find in the production were entirely absent. 

Over the course of a year and a half, the defendant made multiple requests for the email correspondence that it believed existed.  Eventually, an additional 38 emails were produced and then, finally, the correspondence the defendant believed existed was sent along with 9,586 emails responsive to the initial discovery request.  The bulk of these emails were stored in archive folders that were not initially search as part of the plaintiffs’ “live” system.  Under this court’s holding, attorneys have an obligation to go beyond simple requests to look for documents to "become fully familiar with [the] client's document retention policies, as well as [the] client's data retention architecture."

Although the judge stated that neither dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims nor an adverse inference were appropriate sanctions because the failure was not intentional, the plaintiffs and their counsel were ordered to pay all of the costs associated with two forensic searches of electronic data and the expense the defendant incurred in bringing its motion to compel the documents and the motion for sanctions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks