Why employers shouldn't mine employees' social media accounts

A federal judge just told Southwest Airlines what it can't look at on Facebook.

The court entered a permanent injunction barring Southwest from "proactively searching for, relying on, or using" Charlene Carter's religious statements — including her posts about abortion — in any future discipline, discharge, or other adverse action.

Here's the backstory. Southwest fired Carter after she sent her union president graphic anti-abortion images and video. She sued both Southwest and the union under Title VII for religious discrimination. In 2022, a jury awarded her $5 million (later reduced to $800,000), finding that employer and union discriminated and retaliated against her for her religious views. The 5th Circuit sent the trial court's injunction back down as overbroad. This is the judge's narrowed version.

You are what you post

"I guess ... to a certain point, I've abused that freedom."

That's N.A. Poe, a Philadelphia sandwich shop owner, reflecting on the online persona he says just cost him a nearly seven-year business relationship with Human Robot Brewery.

For years, Poe has cultivated an internet presence designed to provoke - irreverent memes, offensive jokes, pot smoking, political commentary, and, in his words, "raging against the machine." He says he's just trying to entertain himself and "tickle the algorithm."

Then came a particularly crude meme involving another Philadelphia bar owner, an Irishman, and a potato.

Poe says it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Human Robot ended the relationship.

Can you fire an employee for criticizing your DEI program on LinkedIn?

"The company has allowed outright hate to proliferate."

That's one of the statements that got John Richardson fired.

Richardson, a data engineer at Apex Fintech Solutions, published a series of LinkedIn articles criticizing what he viewed as the company's DEI culture. He accused Apex of tolerating anti-male discrimination, fostering a hostile work environment, and allowing managers to engage in discriminatory conduct without consequence.

Apex demanded he remove what it called "false, derogatory, disparaging, and/or defamatory" statements. When Richardson asked the company to identify what, specifically, was false, it didn't. Instead, it fired him—and then sued him for defamation.

Last week, an NLRB administrative law judge concluded Apex violated the National Labor Relations Act.

A post-mortem on personal responsibility

"Sure, I posted racist memes and comments on my public Facebook page while identifying myself as a Chicago firefighter. But firing me violated my 1st Amendment rights."

That's the essence of last week's 7th Circuit opinion in Inendino v. Nance-Holt. And while the court spent most of its time parsing constitutional doctrine, I came away thinking about something much simpler.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Social-media account redundancy is a MUST HAVE for branded accounts

Ten years. That's how long this group of employees ran their employer’s Instagram account. Built the brand. Engaged the customers. Became the voice of the business.

And then the business (Vortex Doughnuts) collapsed overnight. 

No notice. No paychecks. No plan. 

What followed is the part every employer should be paying attention to. 

The employees—locked out of their jobs but still in control of the company's social media presence—told their story. Publicly. In detail. With receipts. Including a text message from the owner admitting there wasn't enough money to make payroll. 

Outrage mobs shouldn't run your HR department. Employers need process, not panic, when the internet comes calling.

Outrage mobs shouldn't run your HR department. Yet Vice President JD Vance is urging the outrage mobs on. "When you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out and call their employer." That was his closing call to action as guest host of Charlie Kirk's podcast yesterday.

Plenty didn't need the nudge. Within 24 hours of Kirk's killing, employers nationwide—from media outlets to universities, airlines to retailers—were disciplining or firing staff over posts deemed "insensitive" or "celebratory" of his death.

A cottage industry of doxxing quickly formed. A site originally branded Expose Charlie's Murderers (since rebranded Charlie Kirk Data Foundation for obvious legal reasons) began cataloging names, employers, and posts. Activists like Laura Loomer pledged to ruin careers.

The Stanley Cup of social media screwups

"Eat s--- 51st state anti-semite loser. Israel now and forever. Until every last Hamas rat is eliminated."

That's what Doug Cifu, vice chairman and minority owner of the Florida Panthers, posted to X in a heated exchanged with a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs (the Panthers' current playoff opponent).

It's also what just earned Cifu an indefinite suspension from the NHL—for conduct detrimental to common sense. The NHL called Cifu's posts "unacceptable and inappropriate." That's legalese for, "What were you thinking?!"

Properly functioning boards of directors must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions

Boards must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions. Case in point: last week Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk resharing a post suggesting that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, shifting blame instead to "public sector workers."

It's a statement as reckless as it is offensive, and it raises a bigger question: When a CEO behaves like this, where is the board of directors?

Reputation Matters: Handling a viral controvery

"With hair on your chest, you shouldn't be wearing a dress."

"You look like an idiot."

That's what Sam Johnson, the former CEO of telehealth company VisuWell, allegedly said while harassing and berating a teenage boy who chose to wear a dress to his high school prom. The confrontation happened at a hotel where the teen and his friends were taking prom pictures.

A video of the incident went viral, capturing Johnson's remarks. The backlash was immediate, and VisuWell's board quickly started worrying about the company's reputation.

Off-duty social media is just as actionable as sexual harassment as on-duty misconduct

"An employer cannot be liable for what an employee posts online while off-the-clock. Personal time is personal time; it's irrelevant to the workplace." That is an 100% incorrect statement of the law, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Okonowsky v. Garland.

Linda Okonowsky worked as a staff psychologist in a federal prison. She discovered that a lieutenant with whom she worked operated an Instagram account followed by more than 100 prison employees, which contained overtly sexist (and racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and transphobic) content. It also contained offensive content about the workplace and horrible content that specifically targeted her, including one about the male staff "gang banging" her.

When she complained to the prison's safety manager, he told her that she needed to "toughen up" or "get a sense of humor." It took months of complaints and escalating social-media awfulness before the prison finally took action.

Just because you only use the n-word on your personal TikTok doesn't mean your employer can't fire you for it.

Until yesterday, I had never heard of a "trad-wife" or of Lilly Gaddis.

A trad-wife is a burgeoning trend of women embracing traditional gender roles and lifestyles of the 1950s. Gaddis is an adherent of the lifestyle and promoter of its beliefs on social media.

In a viral TikTok video, Gaddis (white) used the n-word to describe her friends' husbands. Her employer quickly fired her and released a statement about her termination and upholding its values of diversity, inclusivity, respect, and equality.

Despite what he says, Elon Musk will not pay your legal bills if you’re fired for Xing

"If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. No limit. Please let us know."

Elon Musk tweeted (xed?) that note Saturday night to his 152 million followers on his platform. Thus far it’s been liked close to 850,000 times, quoted or retweeted more than 165,000 times, and viewed nearly 130 million times.

And it's complete and total rubbish.

If you can’t beat ’em, sue ’em.

“Competition is fine, cheating is not.” That’s what Elon Musk tweeted after Twitter’s lawyer’s cease and desist letter to Mark Zuckerberg went public.

Twitter accuses Meta of engaging “in systematic, willful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter’s trade secrets and other intellectual property.”

The problem, however, is that according to Meta, “No one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee — that’s just not a thing.” 

Employer correctly fires employee for posting racist meme, court says

Rita Hall worked as a line supervisor at Kosei St. Mary's Corporation when she decided to post a meme of two juxtaposed photos on her personal Facebook page — one photo of a group of monkeys on and around a car, and a second photo of a group of Black people on and around a car. At least three of Hall's subordinates and coworkers filed complaints with KSM's human resources department about the racist meme, and the company subsequently terminated Hall because of it.

In her wrongful discharge lawsuit, the court of appeals had a lot to say about Hall's free speech rights at work, none of it good for the former employee or her lawsuit.

Can an employer disable online commenting to quell pro-union messaging?

There's a lot going on with the union organizing campaign at Creature Comforts Brewing Company. While the union (known as "BUG") continues to wait for the NLRB to schedule a representation election, BUG continues to accuse the brewery of illegal union busting. 

According to the BUG, the brewery (allegedly) illegally fired Spencer "Spicy" Britton, one of the union's biggest supporters. Moreover, the public and the brewery's employees can no longer express their opposition to the brewery's alleged union busting tactics by posting comments on Creature Comforts' Instagram posts. The brewery has disabled the ability to comment on all new posts since March 29.

I'd like to tell you that because the Instagram comment policy applies equally to everyone (non-employees and employees), there's nothing unlawful about it under the National Labor Relations Act. But with the current composition of the most pro-union NLRB in history and its equally pro-union general counsel, all bets are off. I'd have real concerns permitting a client to take this step under these or similar circumstances.

A eulogy for Heather Armstrong

Heather Armstrong, the "queen of the mommy bloggers" and the author of Dooce.com, is dead from an apparent suicide after a relapse in her sobriety. She was only 47 years old. She leaves behind two children and a legacy as one of the most important social media influencers ever.

In February 2002, Heather became the first person of which I'm aware to be fired for something she wrote online. One of her co-workers discovered that Heather was the author of an anonymous blog that, in part, discussed her workplace and her co-workers. Most of what she wrote was unflattering. That person anonymously reported Heather to their HR department. She was then fired because of some of the things she had written.

Tweets, honest beliefs, and terminations

@realDonaldTrump I am the VP of HR in a comp outside of philly an informal survey of our employees shows 100% AA employees voting Trump!

On July 24, 2016, Kathleen Jungclaus — the 55-year-old then-VP of HR for Waverly Heights Ltd. — tweeted the above. A couple of months later, someone anonymously notified Jungclaus's superiors of the tweet. When confronted, Jungclaus initially provided shifting explanations of the tweet's origins but ultimately admitted posting it. As a result, Waverly fired her for violating its social media policy (which she had drafted). After Waverly replaced her with someone 12 years her junior, Jungclaus sued for sex discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.

Offensive social media posts doom airline employee’s discrimination claim

"If I were Black in America, I think I'd get down on my knees every day and thank my lucky stars that my ancestors were brought over here as slaves."

"Have you lost your cotton pickin' mind?"

"Too many [blue-eyed people] are reproducing with Brown Eyed People."

Those are three examples of Colleen Koslosky's (a former American Airlines customer service agent) Facebook posts that went viral and caused her employer to fire her.

She claimed the airline fired her because of her disability — nerve damage and edema in her leg — based on its prior denial of a reasonable accommodation. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it properly fired her after Koslosky's posts went viral, customers complained, and employees refused to work with someone they believed was "racist." 

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had little difficultly affirming the dismissal of Koslosky's lawsuit.

She … claims that a male American customer service employee who was not disciplined for his social media posts disparaging Trump voters — calling them "ignorant rednecks" and "uneducated racist white people." Koslosky does not argue American management knew about her colleague's inflammatory social media posts. This is dispositive. …

As Koslosky points to no evidence of pretext, we are thus left with one conclusion: American fired her because her racially insensitive social media posts violated its policies and generated an outcry from employees and customers alike. Because this is a legitimate justification for her ouster, we are not persuaded that the company violated any law here.

This employee had no business keeping her job or winning a discrimination lawsuit. Employees are absolutely responsible for what the post on their personal social media, and need to understand that their employer can, should, and will hold them accountable when warranted. In this case, it was warranted. 

I have zero sympathy for insubordinate employees who are fired

This is how it started.

This is how it's ended (for now).

In the intervening 48 hours, Elon Musk reportedly fired dozens of Twitter employees who criticized him publicly on Twitter and privately in the company's Slack channel. The first to go was Eric Frohnhoefer, a Twitter engineer who publicly challenged Musk's knowledge of how the app's backend actually works. Other employees, like this one, took to Mastodon to challenge Musk's termination of Frohnhoefer in obscenity laced rants.

Would you fire this employee?

Over the weekend, I asked a simple question on LinkedIn: "Would you fire this employee?"

The employee in question took to LinkedIn to celebrate Elon Musk's dismantling of Blackbirds. Blackbirds was an Employee Resource Group for Black Twitter employees to support them, foster their development, and provide them a safe space within the company.