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

A couple of weeks ago, we posted about the lawsuit filed by the NLRB after a Connecticut company fired an employee over Facebook posts.   Much ink has been spilled in the ensuing days, with many employers becoming increasingly concerned about restrictions being placed on their ability to control their own workforce based on employees’ social media activity.   Could two recent International developments cause you to consider a relocation?

First, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board upheld an employer’s right to fire its employees based on posts made on a social networking site that were less than flattering toward the company and various supervisors.   The string of posts began with one employee posting to co-workers, who happened to be friends on Facebook: “Sometimes ya have good smooth days, when nobody’s fucking with your ability to earn a living . . . and sometimes accidents DO happen, its unfortunate, but that’s why there called accidents right?”  

That post was later followed by others, ranging from “[i]f somebody mentally attacks you, and you stab him in the face 14 or 16 times . . . that constitutes self defence doesn’t it????”, to references to supervisors engaging in sexual conduct and the company itself consisting of “crooks” who are out to “hose you.”    In upholding the employer’s decision to terminate the offending employees, the Canadian Board agreed with the company’s decision that the postings both created a hostile environment for supervisors and co-workers, and also were likely to damage the company’s reputation and interests.

In another apparent victory abroad for employers, an industrial arbitration council outside of Paris, France upheld an employer’s decision to fire two employees for posting “denigrating” comments about the employer during a private Facebook chat.   These posts seemed fairly innocuous by comparison, consisting of one employee commenting to two others that the company was a “club of ill-fated” employees, and that being in the particular club (i.e., the company) made one of the employee’s life miserable.   

The employees argued that the posts and conversation were private and could not be used as evidence before the council in support of the terminations.  The council disagreed, finding that because the Facebook conversations could be viewed by “friends of friends”, and that the existing privacy setting allowed a significant number of non-employees to view the comments, the company properly determined that the employees were denigrating the company and abusing their right to free expression under the applicable labor code.

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?      The law is rapidly developing, both here and outside our borders, in terms of what you can and cannot rely upon in making employment-related decisions.    Beyond staying in touch with these and other continuing developments in the social media and employment law field, it is critical that you stay abreast of the limitations imposed in the particular jurisdiction where you are engaging in business with your employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

According to the Associated Press, doctors in Europe are warning that Facebook may trigger an asthma attack in susceptible users.    According to the reports, such an attack was triggered in an 18-year old man after he logged onto Facebook and saw how many men his ex-girlfriend had “friended”.   The AP quoted a letter published in the medical journal Lancet, which described the victim as having been dumped, and then un-friended, by his girlfriend, and that the sight of seeing her linked to many new male friends “seemed to induce [shortness of breath], which happened repeatedly on the patient accessing her profile.”

Fortunately, the asthma attacks were dramatically reduced when the man consulted with a psychiatrist and “decided not to log into Facebook anymore.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?      Clearly, this is one of those extreme, somewhat comical, social media accounts. But it also serves as another good reminder of other general points made in our prior “social media advisor” posts.   First, whether employees are checking the profiles of their current or former dating partners, or engaging in other personal activities, on company time, it is important to find the proper (and lawful) balance of effective policies and monitoring to reduce diminishing productivity in the workplace.    Second, it also bears repeating that serious health conditions and disabilities, whether the result of, or expressed during, social networking activities should not be dismissed out of hand, but should be addressed by the company as you would if the situation did not arise out of a social media-related event.   That is true even if the end result after your due diligence is that the story is worth little more than a smile and a chuckle at your Thanksgiving table.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

One of the more difficult things for employers, human resources professionals, and lawyers to do in the employment law field is keep up with all the acronyms.   One of the latest is “GINA”, or the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, that first took effect in November 2009.   However, last week, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued final regulations interpreting GINA, which will become effective in January 2011. The new regulations will have far-reaching implications for social media activities.

At its heart, the EEOC recognized that “GINA is intended to prevent discrimination based on concerns that genetic information about an individual suggests an increased risk of, or predisposition to, acquiring a condition in the future.” Title II of GINA, thus, makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to harass, or discriminate or retaliate against, an applicant or employee because of his or her genetic information.   The new regulations contain a plethora of defined terms, including “genetic information”, which is defined to include (among other things) genetic tests of the individual or his or her family member, the individual’s family medical history, and genetic information of a fetus carried by the individual or a family member of the individual.

Critically, the new GINA regulations do not solely address what you can or cannot do once covered information is obtained; rather, the regulations also speak to how you may or may not “acquire” such information, thus effectively instilling a social media element to the dialogue.   For example, Section 1635.8 of the new regulations (“Acquisition of Genetic Information”) expressly provides that an employer:

“may not request, require, or purchase genetic information of an individual or family member of the individual[.]    ‘Request’ includes conducting an Internet search on an individual in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information; . . . and making requests for information about an individual’s current health status in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.”

There are certain exceptions to the prohibition on acquiring genetic information, including “inadvertent acquisition” under certain circumstances.   However, the exceptions are stated narrowly, and obviously there has not yet been a full development of the rules and exceptions contained in the new GINA regulations, which will undoubtedly come through further agency action and lawsuits.  

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?    As is the case in the new GINA regulations, we expect that technology and social media will continue to be expressly accounted for in new employment legislation enacted on a going forward basis. It is important for you to develop a good grasp of the rules and prohibitions contained in the new GINA regulations as the New Year’s effective date quickly approaches.

Would you be violating GINA’s acquisition ban merely by “friending” an applicant or employee on Facebook and being exposed to that individual’s entire profile, which may include postings about covered “genetic information”?   Have you violated GINA by doing a Google search to find the typical background information about an applicant or employee, or by reading a personal blog of that individual that you discover through your search, and that reveals certain “genetic information”?   What about expressing sympathy or inquiring during a social networking chat with an employee about a revealed illness that the employee states is “not surprising because both of my grandparents had it”?   The regulations arguably limit the reach of the prohibition by only banning searches that are themselves “likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.”   Yet, the regulations also refer to Internet searches as only one example of a prohibited “Request”, again leaving the development of the full scope and nature of GINA’s provisions for another day.

You have, hopefully, become sensitive by now to some of the caveats inherent with the use of social media information for employment-related decisions.   Now, you should also understand the potential dangers in simply acquiring certain information about an employee or his or her family member, and make sure that your policies and practices relating to any processes for learning about an applicant or employee are fully compliant with GINA’s new regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

And the cases continue to roll in….

Last week, we blogged about a recent NLRB complaint filed against an employer who fired an employee for criticizing her boss on Facebook.    Since then, on November 8^th, an Arbitrator in Washington, D.C. issued a decision reinstating an employee who had been fired for remarks made on Twitter.   On the surface, one might conclude that this is just an example of different forum, different outcome.   However, upon closer inspection, you begin to see some semblance of a common thread.

According to this Arbitrator’s decision, Radio Free America (“RFA”) is a non-profit company that broadcasted news to certain Asian countries “where people do not have a free press.”   The claimant in this proceeding, King Man Ho, was a broadcaster at RFA, who, as part of his duties, covered a speech given by Secretary of State Clinton about Internet freedom. Ho wrote a piece regarding the speech and some of the discussions that took place afterward with Secretary Clinton, after which certain subjects of his piece apparently complained about the contents of the article and Ho’s journalistic ethics.

Ho began using his Twitter account to try to contact the complaining parties, and became increasingly agitated first about his inability to reach those parties, and then about the accusations themselves.    The decision goes through a lengthy discussion about the sequence of events that followed, including Ho’s communications with his boss over the frequency and nature of his continued tweets.   RFA ultimately terminated Ho’s employment due to what it deemed to be “just cause” insubordination for disregarding a directive to stop posting unprofessional and inappropriate tweets, and later to stop tweeting altogether about the complaints lodged against his article.

While the Arbitrator did find that RFA “shall” issue a written warning to Ho “directing him not to engage in public debates with news sources,” the Arbitrator ruled that there was no just cause for the termination and ordered that Ho be reinstated to his job with back pay, benefits and seniority. The decision suggests that it was not at all clear that Ho was insubordinate to his employer or violated any clear directive or policy of the employer, as the Arbitrator noted in the end: “RFA should address a clearer understanding of the role of [the company’s Director Communications and External Relations] and the occasions when he should become involved with criticisms or questions raised by outside news sources and listeners.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?   This decision should not be read simply as an example of one legal arbiter refusing to allow social media activity to prompt an employment termination.   On the contrary, there seems to be an underlying concern in the decision about the extent and nature of several of Ho’s tweets. Rather, the crux of the Arbitrator’s reasoning is what should be taken away.

Prior installments of the “Social Media Advisor” noted that courts have trended toward allowing discovery of social networking sites, albeit with the common thread that some showing must be made before free and unfettered disclosure is allowed.   Prior posts have also noted that, while a trend suggests that adverse employment action may be taken as a result of an employee’s social media use, care must be taken not to otherwise violate express prohibitions in the law (such as protected class discrimination/harassment and NLRA concerted activity protections), and that employers maintain effective corporate policies.   This arbitration decision highlights the latter point.

By ultimately refusing to find just cause for the termination, the Arbitrator here essentially determined that the company did not create and communicate a sufficiently effective directive or policy that was clearly violated by Ho’s conduct.     Therefore, it is critical to understand the need for you to create, publish and enforce clear directives and policies that address your employees’ social media use.   That way, you will not be faced with uncertainty about whether statements or conduct actually violate something in the first place when you wish to make an employment-related decision as a result of those statements or that conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks

The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) is one of those employment statutes that is rife with misunderstanding in the minds of many employers who believe that the NLRA is only applicable to the unionized workforce.   In fact, while the NLRA does apply largely to the union setting, and does impose various coverage and industry thresholds, it is important to dispel this employer myth by understanding that the NLRA also applies to private, non-union employee settings as well. And, as the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) demonstrated this past week, social media is infiltrating this area as well.

Enacted in 1935, the NLRA affords certain protections to employees, including the right to engage in “concerted activities” for their “mutual aid or protection.”   Employers can be found to have engaged in an “unfair labor practice” if they interfere with the exercise of that right.   To further hit you with legal terms, “concerted activities” consist of activities in which an employee engages with, or on the authority of, other employees, and not merely on that employee’s own behalf.

On October 27, 2010, the Board filed a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc., after the ambulance service fired an employee for criticizing her boss on Facebook.   After an internal dispute at work, the employee apparently posted negative remarks about her boss on her Facebook page, albeit from her home computer.   That comment apparently prompted “supportive responses from her co-workers”, which then resulted in additional negative comments being posted by the employee about her boss and employment conditions.   The Board’s complaint alleged that the employee was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected concerted activities with her co-workers.

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

(1)        One cannot overstate the need to create appropriate social media policies that are not – as the Board suggested in last week’s complaint – overly broad and perhaps unlawful on their face.

(2)        When considering taking adverse action against an employee based on – or after obtaining knowledge about – the employee’s social media statements or conduct, you should at a minimum consider whether that employee was arguably engaging in protected activity under a statute such as the NLRA.   Was the employee engaging in activity that bears a relationship to employees’ interests as employees, as opposed to, say, political or non-employment-related interests?   Do the statements evidence the mere lashing out by, or insubordination of, a single employee based solely on his or her own opinion, or is there evidence of an intent or effect of engaging in “concerted” conduct between or among more than 1 employee, such that the activity could be for their “mutual aid or protection”?

            We have seen, and blogged about, the trend of decisions refusing to protect the privacy and substance of many social media statements and acts when they collide with paramount employer and litigation interests.   However, you as an employer still need to walk that fine line and not react in knee-jerk fashion when faced with less than glowing comments posted about you by an employee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks