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

A “trend” is generally defined as a general course, drift or prevailing tendency.   In the battle between the potential privacy rights of a social networking site user and the desire of a lawsuit party to have full access to the private portions of that user’s profile, the trend favoring full and unfettered access has become clearer with a decision just issued by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in the case of McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc.

In McMillen, the plaintiff was injured during a stock car race, and sued for damages after being rear-ended during a cooling down lap.   He alleged significant physical injuries and overall loss of general health and vitality, as well as an “inability to enjoy certain pleasures of life.” During the lawsuit, the defendants requested that plaintiff identify the name of all sites to which he belonged, and to identify his user name(s), login name(s), and passwords. Plaintiff responded by stating that he belonged to Facebook and MySpace, but he refused to give the other requested information based on confidentiality and privacy grounds.

After reviewing publicly-accessible portions of plaintiff’s sites to discover comments about a fishing trip and possible subsequent car race, the defendants filed a motion with the court to compel the production of the requested information.   The court granted that motion and ordered the plaintiff to provide all of the requested user/login names and passwords.

Recognizing broad discovery rules, the court determined that any information and documents can be discoverable by another party as long as they are relevant to the case and not otherwise privileged. The court in McMillen refused to create a new privilege for social networking sites (none has previously existed), and further found that the private portions of plaintiff’s sites could be relevant to “impeach and contradict his disability and damages claims.”   Specifically, the court noted:

“Millions of people join Facebook, MySpace, and other social network sites, and as various news accounts have attested, more than a few use those sites indiscreetly. . . . When they do and their indiscretions are pertinent to issues raised in a lawsuit in which they have been named, the search for truth should prevail to bring to light relevant information that may not otherwise have been known. Where there is an indication that a person’s social network sites contain information relevant to the prosecution or defense of a lawsuit, therefore, and given [the] admonition that the courts should allow litigants to utilize “all rational means for ascertaining the truth,” and the law’s general dispreference for the allowance of privileges, access to those sites should be freely granted.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

(1)        As the trend will likely continue in favor of social media disclosure over privacy objections, you should continue to understand that nothing written or posted on blogs or other Internet sites will absolutely remain confidential and not subject to viewing by the public.   Be vigilant in your policies and practices to make sure that social media-related statements or conduct of your managers and employees do not have the potential to expose your company to liability.

(2)        You should understand that the McMillen case reflects the current sentiment toward open disclosure of social media sites generally, and not just for personal injury lawsuits. You should recognize, therefore, that social media can, and should, be a potential tool and valuable source of information in employment-related cases where an individual’s physical activities and emotional relationships are very often at issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

In increasing numbers, employers are looking at credit histories to make employment-related decisions.   A recent study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that as many as 60% of its members had consulted credit reports of applicants and current employees to make decisions ranging from hiring and promoting to discipline and termination.  

Like with all other types of information, social media affords easier access to employees' financial and other background information, as online resources (for the employer itself, or a retained third party investigator or agency) exist to obtain driving records, criminal histories, and credit-related reports.   It is only natural to think that employers will continue to want to use such accessible information to get a full and complete picture on someone it considers bringing in to its work environment.   Indeed, third-party investigative firms have been created for retention by employers in order to scour the World Wide Web and create a sort of social media dossier on applicants and employees. Individuals, on the other hand, continue to express a desire to be treated on the merits of their abilities in a process that is free from bias and inaccuracies.

Last week, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held a public hearing to consider the potential discriminatory impacts of employer use of credit histories.   Studies were cited for the proposition that a poor credit history, for example, may not have a direct correlation to the ability to perform one’s specific job, but instead may reflect an adverse bias against women, minorities, or disabled individuals.   The EEOC has not yet announced any immediate course of action it will take at the end of the public hearings as a result of these studies. But one can assume that the federal agency will at some point issue a new policy or position statement on the use of credit and other background checks by employers.

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

While background information and histories are readily accessible, you need to be cautious about the how, when and what of obtaining this type of history, even when it comes from an applicant’s or employee’s own social networking sites. A couple of suggestions:

(1)        Determine whether you want to rely on credit histories and other background information in the first place, and, if so, consider whether to obtain and rely on such information only for certain positions, rather than across the board with respect to all applicants and employees. For example, conducting a credit check for a restaurant chef or file clerk who will have no financial responsibilities may be unnecessary and may not be worth the risk of potential liability.    On the other hand, an auditor or a bank teller may have job duties that warrant certain considerations.

(2)        If you are going to check an individual's background, make sure you are complying with the strict requirements in existing law.  The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the federal Bankruptcy Code, and even Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, all proscribe the misuse of credit histories.   In addition, FCRA contains very specific disclosure and notification obligations on employers in many cases, even requiring the use of specific forms before and after obtaining certain background information and taking adverse employment action against the applicant or employee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

The government is seeing the benefits of social media too.    Recently, the Department of Homeland Security revealed that United States immigration agents were being trained on how to use social networking sites to detect visa and other immigration fraud.   The government is also using the force of its search warrant power to explore the social media dealings of its targets.   For example, this year in the case of State v. Gurney, the defendant had surrendered to police after the apparent strangulation, decapitation and burning of his girlfriend’s body in his apartment, yet objected to police search warrants issued for his Facebook profile.  

The government is playing an increasing role in corporate operations, and one day your company may answer the door at reception to find an investigator looking to look into your little piece of heaven.   It could be the Department of Labor, or the IRS, or investigators looking into potential OSHA violations.   And no longer are the investigations constrained by what is on the written page, as we know that companies are using social media for virtually all aspects of their business.  

Online applications are being solicited and stored, employment policies and procedures are distributed and maintained on intranet portals, employee complaints are lodged on electronic forums that may or may not be sponsored by the company, and the company itself may even be discussing its business (and inadvertently violating some law) on its own blogs and web sites.   Social media is here to stay, and government investigators know that. You need to be ready for an agency audit by making sure your document files and online/social media practices are compliant.

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

(1)        What generally triggers an agency audit of your company?   Government agencies may commence an audit of your company based on a complaint by a disgruntled former or current employee.   Or, the audit may be random, based on an agency’s policy initiative to target a particular industry or type of business.   An audit may even arise based on a prior investigation or inquiry into your company.   One of the reasons it is important not to act in a manner that raises the risk of a red flag being pinned to your company’s dossier.

(2)        What hot issues are catching the eyes of investigators?    Agencies are showing up to look into your employee versus independent contractor classifications.   They are also inquiring as to whether your employees are being properly compensated for the work actually performed in areas such as pre- and post-shift activities (setting up computers and work stations, changing into and out of required clothing, performing security checks and other “closing” rituals after clocking out).  Are required meal breaks continuous and uninterrupted, or are your non-exempt employees eating a sandwich at their desk?  Have you properly identified and managed potential OSHA violations?  Investigators are also looking for compliance with record-keeping and posting requirements contained in the myriad of employment laws.

(3)        What do you do when you are the subject of a government audit?   The first step should be before you are the subject.   That is, through coordination between inside and outside counsel, you are best served to conduct an internal audit of your policies and practices to determine whether you could ultimately pass an agency checklist on today’s hot-button issues.  

            But once the investigator has already arrived, it is important to represent your company appropriately, even while you are properly and vigorously defending your position and maintaining all defenses to the scope of the investigation.   Designate one company contact person for all dealings with the investigator, and have a discussion early on to determine the source and scope of any complaint and the investigation itself.     Keep your own record of what documents and online materials are being requested, and of which employees are being questioned.   There are certain limits to what the agency can seek, and when they can seek it.    In the end, finding the proper balance between defending your company and cooperating with the investigator will often expedite the time before the investigator walks back out your door for good.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

If an employee came to you and said that he can’t comply with your company’s dress code because he belonged to the Church of Body Modification, what would you say?   You may need to rethink that.

I don’t watch ABC’s “The View”.   Not that there’s anything wrong with it. Though, an episode a couple of weeks ago prompted a thought about the role that social networking sites could have on religious expression in the workplace.   On September 16^th, the hosts of The View discussed how a North Carolina High School student was suspended because she wore a nose ring. The student alleged the school’s dress code violated her freedom of religion because she wore the nose ring as part of her faith in the Church of Body Modification. The hosts noted that that Church had approximately 3500 members, and may have been federally recognized as a tax-exempt religious entity.

Doing a little research, I found that this was not the first time such a claim was made by a Church member.   According to news reports, Costco apparently fired a woman back in 2001 after she refused to remove an eyebrow ring.   The employee sued for religious discrimination, claiming that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification, a religion that she said dated back to 1999.

Social media arguably makes it easier for employees to claim that they are members of a religion.   Indeed, one of the primary benefits of social networking sites and blogs is the ability of individuals to assemble and participate in large groups holding common interests and expression.   It could be for recreational, educational, political, or cultural reasons, and can be for religious purposes as well.    But how far can they go?   Do you need to recognize as a “religion” a group of employees claiming to belong to the “Church of Face Painting,” where employees believe that their favorite football teams will receive divine intervention on Sundays only if they paint their team’s colors on their faces every Friday in the office?   Or, the “Church of Hendrixology”, where Jimi Hendrix music must be played while the employee performs any form of physical labor?

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act obligates an employer to offer a reasonable accommodation when faced with a conflict between an employee’s sincerely-held religious belief, and a policy or condition of employment maintained by the employer, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the company. The statute defines “religion” as including “all aspects of religious observances and practice, as well as belief[.]”   Inherent in that, however, is the requirement that the employee have a bona fide religious practice or belief. Courts have addressed this notion of what constitutes a religion in many different contexts, and the IRS even has guidelines to determine religious status for tax exemption purposes.

The line between church and state, and between religious observance and workplace rules, is getting increasingly more blurry.     Social media is arguably making it easier for employees, and other groups of individuals, to express religious views and engage in common, organized religious observances.   Employers need to understand their obligations without dismissing religion-based claims simply because they may not fall within the traditionally-held notions of what a “religion” may be.

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

(1)        Extreme and frivolous claims will not generally lead to employer obligations in the area of required religious accommodation.    However, in the event you learn through social media or otherwise that an employee or group of employees claims that a religious belief or practice must be accommodated, you should not merely ignore that claim because it seems silly, trivial or self-serving at first blush.   You should effectively treat religious accommodation cases much like you would disability accommodation cases, and do at least a minimal analysis based on applicable legal definitions and requirements to determine whether there is sufficient indicia of a sincerely-held religious belief or practice.

(2)        You should determine whether there is, in fact, a true conflict between the employee’s religious belief or practice and the policy or conduct rule being violated.

(3)        You should engage in a form of interactive process to determine whether there is an accommodation that can be provided that alleviates the conflict, while not posing an undue hardship for your company.   While wanting to avoid any precedent-setting accommodation, you may be able to avoid unwanted lawsuits and negative publicity by making simple changes to accommodate one’s religious beliefs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

Another court has issued a decision that continues one social media trend:   Despite what the terms of conditions may say for an employee’s social networking site, and despite what the employee’s own expectations may be, the “private” postings of an employee who has affirmatively raised certain issues in a lawsuit will be fair game.

So said a Judge in the New York Supreme Court for the County of Suffolk, this time in a case entitled Romano v. Steelcase, Inc.    In that case, the plaintiff claimed that she fell off an allegedly defective desk chair while working at a university.   She later sued various entities for significant injuries, claiming that she had “consequential loss of enjoyment of life.”   The defendant served a notice on plaintiff’s attorney seeking authorization to obtain access to and copies of all of the plaintiff’s private records and information from her Facebook and MySpace accounts after having already obtained information from the public portions of her profiles that appeared to belie plaintiff’s claims that she was unable to lead an active lifestyle and engage in physical activities.

Rejecting plaintiff’s opposition on the basis of privacy rights, the court found that plaintiff had put her private activities in controversy by claiming damages for her alleged injuries in her lawsuit. Notably, the court held that refusing access to private postings “not only would go against the liberal discovery policies of New York favoring pretrial disclosure, but would condone plaintiff’s attempt to hide relevant information behind self-regulated privacy settings.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?   

(1)        Continue to take advantage of the trend toward liberal access to and discovery of an employee’s private postings when you are involved in a lawsuit with that employee.   The Romano decision is the latest example of a court’s refusal to place privacy notions in the social media context ahead of traditional notions of a free and unfettered right to the exchange of information in civil litigation. You should, however, also be sensitive to the fact that such liberality is a two-way street, and that an employee might be able to similarly persuade a court that he or she should be entitled to gain access to and use private postings from officers or managers of your company for issues relevant to claims in a pending lawsuit.

(2)        When asking a court to allow access to an employee’s private information, make sure the request is narrowly tailored and reasonably related to the lawsuit itself.   The decision in the Romano case suggests that the Judge was persuaded that the defendant made a sufficient showing that private postings may reveal relevant information based on what was already discovered through the employee’s public profile information.     All judges might not be sympathetic to a boilerplate form request, or an overbroad request asking for the moon and the stars based on nothing more than speculation that something may exist that would help the defense.   Thus, it is wise to demonstrate an appropriate connection between the issues raised in your particular lawsuit on the one hand, and the need for access to the private information being sought on the other.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks