New workplace app raises old issues

At the beginning of 2015, I reported on the launch of a new app — Memo — which allowed employees to post anonymous comments or complaints about their workplaces. Microsoft has now joined the fray of workplace griping apps with one of its own, called Forum.

According to the app’s description, it “lets ideas thrive, facilitates open dialogue within organizations, and enables employees to freely express themselves.” More importantly, unlike Memo, Forum appears to be non-anonymous. From iMore: “Forum has apparently been designed primarily for businesses to give their employees a chance to speak their minds and connect with their fellow workers and executives.”
 

Guest post: Social Business and HR, Part 1 — Online Reputation Management in the Context of HR

By Mike Wise

Today, we are going to try something new — a guest post. Readers, meet Mike Wise. Mike will be joining us for a three-part series over the next three months to share his thoughts on the social business and human resources. Today is Part 1: Online Reputation Management in the Context of HR.

Employers might not “like” this protected concerted activity decision

Does the National Labor Relations Act protect the mere act of an employee clicking the “Like” button on Facebook? According to Triple D, LLC v. NLRB (2nd Cir. 10/21/15) [pdf], the answer is yes.

Is digital “shunning” illegal retaliation?

Wired tells the story of an Australian tribunal, which ruled that an employee was illegally bullied at work, in part because a co-worker had unfriended her on Facebook.

Transfer this case to America, and assume that the employee is claiming retaliation based on the unfriending. Supposed Employee-A complains to HR that Employee-B is sexually harassing her, and, as soon as Employee-B finds out about the complaint, he unfriends Employee-A on Facebook. Does Employee-A have a claim for retaliation based on the unfriending?

The answer is likely no.

As a matter of law, an adverse action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation merely must be an action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination. Yet, the Supreme Court has stated that the adversity to support a claim for retaliation must be “material”, and that petty slights, minor annoyances, or a simple lack of good manners normally will not count:

We speak of material adversity because we believe it is important to separate significant from trivial harms. Title VII, we have said, does not set forth “a general civility code for the American workplace.” … An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience…. It does so by prohibiting employer actions that are likely “to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC,” the courts, and their employers…. And normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence….

A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.

Thus, an ostracism or shunning from a social network—one that serves no work-related purpose other than fostering congeniality among co-workers—likely should not support a claim for retaliation.

Don’t forget to check social networks during your workplace investigations

Cleveland.com reports that a former bi-racial employee has sued a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant for race and disability discrimination:

A discrimination lawsuit contends that two employees of a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant in Aurora used racial slurs, including n-----, to refer to a black co-worker.

Brandon Waters’ suit also accuses the Indiana-based restaurant chain of failing to provide a harassment-free work environment, resulting in his firing in 2011 for being too afraid to show up for work….

Waters is biracial, and he was born with a viral infection that affects his motor and speech skills. His lawsuit names the restaurant chain, Timothy Schoeffler, a former co-worker, and Nick Karl, a former manager at the restaurant.

According to the complaint, Waters was called racial slurs at the store and on Twitter, and Karl and Schoeffler referred to him by the nickname “Radio,” a reference to the 2003 film in which Cuba Gooding Jr. plays a mentally disabled student. Karl is also accused of creating a “Radio” name tag that Waters refused to wear. 

Schoeffler also dumped a milkshake on Waters’ head in front of Karl, who laughed, the lawsuit states. The two then discussed the incident on Twitter, the lawsuit says.

Screen shots of a collection of tweets between the two men is attached to the lawsuit, and includes references to “Radio” and messages such as “the white way is the right way.”

Screen shots? Here you go:

 

Two thoughts to leave you with:

1. Yes, employees are still ignorant enough about social media to engage in very public online conversation about the (alleged) systematic harassment of a co-worker. If you are not checking Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and other social networks as part of your internal workplace investigations, there is a good chance you are missing key evidence, and maybe even the smoking gun.

2. The restaurant fired the accused employees in response to the plaintiff’s complaint to management about the alleged harassment. The plaintiff, however, just stopped going to work after their termination, claiming that he felt “unsafe as other employees and managers either tolerated or participated in the harassment.” If this employer had an anti-harassment policy, trained all of its employees about the policy, conducted a prompt investigation after the internal complaint, and took prompt remedial action after the complaint, I think that this plaintiff is going to have a difficult time establishing his claim against the employer.

New poll reveals continued risk in Googling job applicants

According to a recently published Harris Poll, 52 percent of employers use social media to research job candidates. This number is up from 43 percent in 2014 and 39 percent in 2013.

What information are employers looking for?

• 60 percent are looking for information that supports their qualifications for the job.
• 56 percent want to see if the candidate has a professional online persona.
• 37 percent want to see what other people are posting about the candidate.
• 21 percent admit they’re looking for reasons not to hire the candidate.

The same poll found that 35 percent of hiring managers who use social media to screen applicants have sent friend requests or otherwise attempted to connect with applicants online. As stunning as that number is, it’s even more stunning that 80 percent report that job seekers report accepting such requests. 

Employers, please stop the insanity. I’m not treading new ground here by telling you that you are taking a huge risk by Googling or Friending applicants without proper checks in place to guard against the disclosure of protected information. “What types of information,” you ask? How about information about the individual’s medical history or religious preference, for starters. 

Yes, there are a host of reasons to engage in these searches. Indeed, I believe that, in a world of increasing transparency online, employers take a risk by not including Facebook in their pre-employment background searches. But, it needs to be part of larger background screening program. And, you need to ensure that you have the right checks in place to keep protected information (such as EEO stuff) as far away from the decision makers as possible. 

How do you do this? Train someone external to your hiring process to perform the searches, and provide a scrubbed report to those internal to the hiring process. These scrubbed reports should be void of any protected information, while including any info relevant to the hiring decision (such as whether the applicant has ever trashed an ex-employer online, or disclosed an ex-employer’s confidential information, or exhibits poor judgment by posting inappropriate or harassing stuff).

And, for god’s sake, please stop Friending job applicants. It’s just plain creepy.

NLRB signs off on employer social media policy as legal

It’s not news that employer social media policies are on the NLRB’s radar. What is newsworthy, though, is when the NLRB considers a social media policy and concludes that it does not unlawfully infringe on employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Consider, then, Landry’s Inc., decided last week by the NLRB, as newsworthy.

In that case, the NLRB considered the following social media policy:

While your free time is generally not subject to any restriction by the Company, the Company urges all employees not to post information regarding the Company, their jobs, or other employees which could lead to morale issues in the workplace or detrimentally affect the Company’s business. This can be accomplished by always thinking before you post, being civil to others and their opinions, and not posting personal information about others unless you have received their permission. You are personally responsible for the content you publish on blogs, wikis, or any other form of social media. Be mindful that what you publish will be public for a long time. Be also mindful that if the Company receives a complaint from an employee about information you have posted about that employee, the Company may need to investigate that complaint to insure that there has been no violation of the harassment policy or other Company policy. In the event there is such a complaint, you will be expected to cooperate in any investigation of that complaint, including providing access to the posts at issue.

The Board concluded that the policy was lawful:

Employees reading the Respondent’s social media policy could reasonably conclude … that they are being urged to be civil with others in posting job-related material and discussing on social media sites their grievances and disagreements with the Respondent or each other regarding job-related matters.… There is no restriction in the social media policy against posting “personnel” information or “payroll information,” or “wage-related information”; and obviously, posting information that in common parlance is generally understood to be personal such as, for example, matters regarding social relationships and similar private matters, could result not only in morale problems but could also constitute “harassment” to which the Respondent’s social media policy refers. It is readily apparent that such postings would likely create enmity among employees in the workplace which could, in turn, adversely affect the Respondent’s business.

Why is this newsworthy? Because, for years, the NLRB has urged for an expansive reading of employer policies, suggesting that a hypothetical parade-of-horribles that could lead to union-related, or other protected concerted, activity renders any facially neutral workplace policy unlawful. In Landry’s, the Board is adopting (at least in this case) a more reasonable, real-world reading of a social media policy to conclude that because no employee could reasonably read the policy, in context, to unreasonably infringe on employees’ rights.

This case provides a good illustration of the fine distinctions the NLRB is drawing between lawful and unlawful social media policies, and provides a good reminder of the need for all employers to routinely review your own social media and other workplace policies for compliance.

Is a LinkedIn search subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act

I’ve written a lot in the past few years about the pros and cons of companies using social media to conduct background checks on applicants and employees (e.g., here and here). One issue I’ve never considered, however, is whether the social media site is a “consumer reporting agency” subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or the information compiled from such searches qualifies as a Consumer Report. The issue is significant, because if the social sites are CRAs, or their information are CRs, then employers who use these sites to conduct background searches are subject to the FCRA’s myriad pre- and post-screening notice, consent, and disclosure requirements.

Recently, a California federal court examined this very issue in Sweet v. LinkedIn Corporation [pdf], and concluded that LinkedIn’s Reference Search function does not render it subject to the FCRA.

Unlike other social sites, LinkedIn maintains a specific tool that helps employers’ reference checks—a premium tool called “Reference Search,” which creates “a list of people who have worked at the same company during the same time period as the member you’d like to learn more about.” More simply, Reference Search generates a list of potential employment references.

In Sweet, a group of unsuccessful job applicants argued that LinkedIn failed to comply with the FCRA in how it operates and maintains “Reference Search.” The court disagreed, concluding that LinkedIn’s Reference Search is not a Consumer Report under the FCRA.

LinkedIn’s publications of employment histories of the consumers who are the subjects of the Reference Searches are not consumer reports because the information contained in these histories came solely from LinkedIn’s transactions or experiences with these same consumers. The FCPA excludes from the definition of consumer report any “report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report.”

In other words, because LinkedIn creates its databases solely from information submitted by its account holders, it falls outside the FCRA’s coverage.

While employers still have EEO concerns with the use of social networks for background checks, this case should give employers some relief, as it appears that the FCRA is one statute they needn’t worry about when using social media to vet candidates or for other employment purposes.

NLRB eviscerates the line between insubordination and protected concerted activity

Employers struggle with how to handle employees to take to social media to vent about work. And, they do so for good reason. For one, employers risk creating a viral nightmare out of a fleeting vent. Also, the NLRB continues to take a long, hard look at Facebook firings.

Case in point: Pier Sixty, LLC [pdf].

A Pier Sixty employee took to his personal Facebook page to vent about how his manager had been talking to co-workers. This employee, however, used what anyone would consider less-than-professional language to express his frustration. 

Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER FUCKER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! Fuck his mother and his entire fucking family!!!! What a LOSER!!!! 

Unfortunately for this employer: 1) the company was facing a union election two days later; 2) this employee supported the union; and 3) he ended his post, “Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!!”

Not so surprisingly, when the employer learned of the Facebook post, it fired the employee. Also not so surprisingly, the foul-mouthed Facebooker filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.

The NLRB sided with the employee:

[W]hile distasteful, the Respondent tolerated the widespread use of profanity in the workplace, including the words “fuck” and “motherfucker.” Considered in this setting, Perez’ use of those words in his Facebook post would not cause him to lose the protection of the Act.

Even if the air of this workplace is full with tolerated obscenities, should an employer ever have to tolerate this type of language specifically directed at a member of management and his family? More to the point, as the lone dissenter argued:

The language Perez chose to post was not merely obscenity used as curse words or name-calling. The phrases NASTY MOTHER F—er and F—ck his mother and his entire f—ing family are qualitatively different from the use of obscenity that the Respondent appears to have tolerated in this workplace. Perez’ statements were both epithets directed at McSweeney and a slur against his family that also constituted a vicious attack on them.

What are the takeaways for employers?

1. Insubordination is insubordination, period. An employer should not have to put up with this type of harsh language specifically directed at a member of management. Nevertheless, this case illustrates the regulatory environment under which employers currently operate, and the scrutiny that even the safest of terminations might receive.
2. If you want to make sure that you have the freedom to discipline any employee for the use of obscenities, it is safest to apply the same standard to all employees. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the Board missed the mark in this case. There exists a real and meaningful distinction between the occasional conversational f-bomb and “Fuck his mother and his entire fucking family!!!!“

Are Meerkat and Periscope the “next big thing” for employers to worry about?

Have you downloaded Meerkat or Periscope to your iPhone? Do you even know what Meerkat and Periscope are? They are new apps that permit you to live-stream video. They essentially work the same way—when you launch a live-stream, the app tweets out a link for your followers to watch your video. The only real difference in the experience (aside from the aesthetics of the apps) is that once you stop your stream on Meerkat the link goes dead and the video disappears, while Periscope can keep the link live for 24 hours of replay viewing.

Last week, within hours of Meerkat’s and Periscope’s launches, a massive building explosion on New York’s Lower East Side gave us a glimpse of the potential power of these apps, as they turned everyone with an iPhone into instant video-journalists. As for me, so far I’ve only used them to send out video of my dog sleeping on the couch (although I hope to put Periscope to use for some video legal updates in the near future).

Should employers worry about these apps? They offer employees tremendous power. Imagine your workers live-streaming alleged safety violations in your plant, or active sexual harassment, or a termination meeting, or an employer trying to break up a picket line?

Yet, this technology isn’t the-sky-is-falling for employers. For years, the iPhone has placed this same power into employees’ hands. An iPhone + an active internet connection + a YouTube account isn’t that much different than these new live-streaming apps. These apps remove some of the friction from the posting experience, but otherwise don’t create any new opportunities for your employees to journalize your workplace.

Employers shouldn’t knee-jerk ban these apps (or mobile devices in general) from the workplace. It’s possible that the NLRB would permit employers to ban the use of these apps in the workplace, but it’s just as likely that the NLRB will look at such policies with a harsh eye under its section-7 lens. Until we get some guidance from courts on these issues, there is real risk in broad-based bans of mobile technologies or apps.

Instead of rolling out a reactionary policy that could catch the NLRB’s attention, train your employees on their responsible use of the Internet, and your managers and supervisors on the need to be very aware of the possibility that everything that happens at work no longer necessarily stays at work. Indeed, if it happens at work, it is just as likely to end up on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube … or Periscope.

You can follow me on Periscope @jonhyman, and tune in at 5 pm on April 11, where I’ll be broadcasting some of my daughter’s performance live from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Turning a mistake into an educational opportunity

Yesterday, local morning news anchor Kristi Capel got herself into a bit of a mess when, during her newscast and while speaking to her African-American co-anchor, used “jigaboo” to refer to Lady Gaga’s music.

We can debate the sincerity of her explanation (“I deeply regret my insensitive comment. I didn’t know the meaning and would never intentionally use hurtful language. I sincerely apologize”), or the intent of her words. To me, she did not appear to intend hatred or bigotry, even if I don’t necessarily believe that she didn’t know the meaning of jigaboo. We can also debate whether she deserves to lose her job because of this incident. To me, if this is her first instance of racial insensitivity in the workplace, then there is no reason she must be fired (although Fox 8 certainly would be within its rights if it did so).

Instead, I want to use this story to illustrate a broader and much more useful point. In responding to workplace harassment, Title VII does not require that an employer deploy the most severe punishment. Instead, Title VII merely requires that an employer institute corrective action that is reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from re-occurring. Every workplace faux pas is not an excuse to punish. Yet, each presents an opportunity for an employer to teach, and for employees to learn.

In commenting on the incident, Fox 8’s news director said, “Kristi apologized on the air shortly after making the remark. She did not know what the word meant but that is no excuse for using it. We have spoken with her and are confident nothing like this will happen again.” Good response.

Gawker intern lawsuit shows the need for social-media savvy in the legal profession

Have you recently tried to communicate with someone under the age of 25? Have you tried to call them? How about email? What about text message, Facebook, or Twitter? I bet that your communicative outreaches are much more likely to gain a response if you choose any of the latter over the former.

Thus, it shouldn’t be that surprising that a federal court is permitting a group of former interns (now plaintiffs) to use social media to reach out to potential class members concerning a wage-and-hour lawsuit against online blog network Gawker. According to Gawker, however, in this letter filed with the court [pdf], the plaintiffs’ planned social media outreach goes too far.

The court previously green lit the plaintiffs’ use of social media to reach potential class members. Their proposed plan? In addition to tweets directing potential class members to a website about the lawsuit, the use of the hashtag “#gawkerinternlawsuit, and the creation of a Facebook pages and LinkedIn group to disseminate information to potential class members. Other proposals, to which the employer objects, include:

• Repeat messages over numerous social media sites, including Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Facebook.
• The use of inflammatory hashtags such as #fairpay and #livingwage.
• Plaintiffs’ counsel adding potential claimants as Facebook friends.
• Using Reddit to tie the lawsuit to unrelated political causes.

I don’t need to tell you that social media has become ubiquitous. I also don’t need to tell you that lawyers are notoriously slow to adapt. As the Gawker case illustrates, social media is playing, and will continue to play, an important role in litigation. If I were hiring an attorney to handle my employment litigation, one question I would be asking is whether that lawyer understands social media, uses social media, and knows how it could be used to help the case.

[Hat tip: Employment Law 360]

New anonymous workplace app raises big workplace issue

Have you heard about Memo? It an iPhone app that allows individuals to post anonymous comments, both positive and negative, about their employers to a specific group page about the company. As you could imagine, it’s the negative posts that will get the lion’s share of attention.

Here’s what a typical company-bashing comment on Memo looks like.

According to Quartz.com, Memo has already “received two cease-and-desist letters, two companies have blocked emails from Memo hitting their servers, and three companies have written memos to employees about the app.”

I want to address the latter—companies that, via policy, fiat, or otherwise, try to stop their employees from using Memo.

As you should know, federal labor law gives employees the right to engage in protected, concerted activity—that is, discussions between or among employees about wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employees’ discussions, for example, about an open-door policy, would be a textbook example of protected concerted activity.

Federal labor law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. Retaliation isn’t Memo’s biggest risk because its posts are (supposedly) anonymous. However, federal labor law also prohibits employers from maintaining or enforcing policies that could chill employees’ right to speak about terms and conditions of employment.

Thus, if you think you can legislate Memo (or other similar apps) out of your workplace, you might want to think again. The NLRB will likely hold a very different opinion about the rights of your employees to talk about your company, anonymously or otherwise.

Not all speech on social media is protected

I’ve spilled a ton of ink over the past few years warning employers about the risks and pitfalls that lurk in attempting to act against an employee for work-related comments on social media. Not all online speech, however, is protected, as two recent cases illustrate.

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (Ohio Ct. App. 10/28/14), a parole office posted the following on her personal Facebook page:

I’ll gimp into work tomorrow. I guess I could just shoot them all ... lol!

Yo! Thanks neighbor. I’ll gimp into work tomorrow. I guess I could just shoot them all … ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ‘MEANING I CAN’T CHASE THEM!’ OH MY GOD! YOU PEOPLE REALLY DO NEED A LIFE! LIKE NO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ‘EVER’ MADE THAT TYPE OF COMMENT. YOU MAKE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD!

Troubled by these comments, the ODRC sent Ames for three different independent medical examination, and ultimately terminated her. The appellate court dismissed her disability discrimination claim, concluding that: 1) the mere fact that an employer sends an employee for an IME does not mean that the employer regarded the employee as disabled; and 2) regardless, “posting a vulgar, threatening statement toward a co-worker under her supervision” is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate.

Richmond District Neighborhood Center (NLRB 10/28/14) [pdf] concerned the following Facebook exchange between two teen center employees:

Let them do the numbers, and we’ll take advantage, play music loud, get artists to come in and teach the kids how to graffiti up the walls and make it look cool, get some good food. I don’t feel like bein their bitch and making it all happy-friendly-middle school campy. Let’s do some cool shit, and let them figure out the money…. They dont appreciate shit. Thats why this year all I wanna do is shit on my own. have parties all year and not get the office people involved….

hahaha! Fuck em. field trips all the time to wherever the fuck we want!

When a co-worker sent screenshots of the conversation (which included a student), the teen center rescinded its re-employment offers to the two employees. The NLRB had little trouble concluding that these posts were unprotected insubordination, not protected concerted activity:

Callaghan and Moore’s lengthy exchange repeatedly described a wide variety of planned insubordination in specific detail. We are not presented here with brief comments that might be more easily explained away as a joke, or hyperbole divorced from any likelihood of implementation. The magnitude and detail of insubordinate acts advocated in the posts reasonably gave the Respondent concern that Callaghan and Moore would act on their plans, a risk a reasonable employer would refuse to take. The Respondent was not obliged to wait for the employees to follow through on the misconduct they advocated.

From these two examples, we glean that, indeed, there exists a line between protected online speech and unprotected threats, harassment, or insubordination. The difficult task is figuring out where that line is, an issue that will continue to develop, and bears watching, as more employees take to the social-sphere to air workplace grievances.

Does social media hold the cure for your malingering, hooky playing employees?

In one of the better earlier episodes of The Office, the Assistant to the Regional Manager, Dwight Schrute, thinks that one of his co-workers is faking an illness to get out of work. So, he stakes out the employee’s house to investigate and uncover the truth.

 

According to a recent Harris Poll (h/t: Cleveland.com), figuring out if your employees are cheating on their sick leave is no longer as complicated as a stake out, and is only as far away as a few clicks of your mouse. According to the poll, nearly a quarter of employers have caught their employees lying on social media about being sick. Of those caught, a quarter were fired, while half were disciplined or reprimanded.

 

 

Three observations—

 

     1. If you think an employee is abusing sick leave or other time off, a little investigation on social media appears to go along way to ferreting out the truth. You no longer need to go the Dwight-Schrute route to determine if an employee is lying to you about the reason he or she isn’t at work. You should be adding social media to your quiver of investigatory tools. Otherwise, you could be missing a key (and easy) piece of the puzzle.

     2. The employment relationship is based on trust. Once that trust disintegrates, the relationship is almost certainly unsalvageable. I’m almost as shocked that only 25% of employers who have caught an employee lying about sick leave fired the offending employee, as I am that that another 25% appear to ignore the indiscretion completely. While I agree that we need better time-off policies in this country, it is still no excuse for lying.

     3. Then again, if an employee is so reckless (or senseless) as to tell an employer one thing, and then post the exact opposite on Facebook or Twitter an hour later, maybe I don’t want that employee working for me anyway. Just saying.

Facebook firing causes unfair labor practice double play for NLRB

In Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille [pdf], the NLRB unanimously concluded that an employer unlawfully fired two employees for their off-duty Facebooking, and less-than unanimously concluded that the same employer’s social media policy was unlawfully restrictive.

A former Triple Play employee, Jamie LaFrance, posted the following on her Facebook page:

Maybe someone should do the owners of Triple Play a favor and buy it from them. They can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money … Wtf!!!!

Two then-current employees, Spinella and Sanzone, interacted with that post. Spinella clicked the “Like” button under the comment. In response to another’s comment to the same post, Sanzone commented, “I owe too. Such an asshole.”

The Board concluded that Triple Play unlawfully fired Spinella and Sanzone for their Facebook activities:

Spinella’s and Sanzone’s comments were not “so disloyal … as to lose the Act’s protection.” … The comments at issue did not even mention the Respondent’s products or services, much less disparage them. Where, as here, the purpose of employee communications is to seek and provide mutual support looking toward group action to encourage the employer to address problems in terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or undermine its reputation, the communications are protected.

The NLRB then examined the employer’s Internet/Blogging Policy, which stated:

The Company supports the free exchange of information and supports camaraderie among its employees. However, when internet blogging, chat room discussions, e-mail, text messages, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the Company, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Please keep in mind that if you communicate regarding any aspect of the Company, you must include a disclaimer that the views you share are yours, and not necessarily the views of the Company. In the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect.

The Board concluded that a vagueness and lack of specificity doomed the policy:

Here, we believe that employees would reasonably interpret the Respondent’s rule as proscribing any discussions about their terms and conditions of employment deemed “inappropriate” by the Respondent. The rule contains only one other prohibition—against revealing confidential information—and provides no illustrative examples to employees of what the Respondent considers to be inappropriate. Under these circumstances, we find the term “inappropriate” to be “sufficiently imprecise” that employees would reasonably understand it to encompass “discussions and interactions protected by Section 7.” …

The two unlawful discharges served as an indication to employees that the clause did not shield Sanzone’s and Spinella’s protected activity. Faced with these discharges, employees therefore would reasonably construe the Internet/Blogging policy to prohibit Section 7 activity such as the Facebook discussion of tax withholding issues involved in this case.

What can employers learn from this decision:

1. Even the simple act of clicking the “Like” button can be enough to constitute protected concerted activity.

2. The line beyond which an employee must cross to cost themselves the protections of the NLRA is far down the path of online speech.

3. For any social media policy to pass muster under the NLRA, you should provide specific examples of the prohibited speech. Generalizations will likely cause you problems with the NLRB.

4. The surest way to end up the NLRB’s crosshairs for an unlawful social media policy is to fire an employee for a violation of that policy. Absent a termination, it is unlikely the Board will ever find out about your policy.

Should you block social media at work?

One of my summer television addictions is NY Med, which follows surgeons around some of the New York metro area’s busiest hospitals. One this summer’s episodes focused on a man who had been hit by a subway train. An ER nurse Instagrammed a photo of the empty trauma room, along with the caption “#Man vs 6 train”. Later that day, the hospital fired her. According to ABC News, she was fired for being “insensitive,” not for posting any protected patient information or for violating any hospital policy.

I thought of this story as, over the weekend, I read an article on The Next Web entitled, Productivity vs. Distraction: Should you block social media at work? The answer to this question is a resounding “no.” Here’s why, in my opinion.

Like it or not, we live in a social world. People are living their lives on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Take Facebook. It has 1.28 billion users, 59% of whom visit the site every day. 68% of all time spent on Facebook is done via its mobile app. Twitter is even higher, at 86%. These stats show that it you are trying to ban employee social media access at work, you are fighting a battle you cannot win. If an employee wants to check Facebook at work, or post a Tweet, or show off that fancy filtered sunset on Instagram, they will simply take their iPhone out of their pocket and post away.

So what is a company to do? Embrace the fact that employees will access their social media accounts from work. So, how do you balance on-the-job productivity against the social media’s distractions? TNW offers four great tips:

1. Draft a policy. I was troubled when I read that the nurse on NY Med had not violated any policy by posting on Instagram a photo of the inside of a trauma room. Given the vast number of your employees who are on social media, it is irresponsible not to have a social media policy. Just make sure it will pass muster with the draconian agenda being put forth by the NLRB.
2. Invest in the idea that employees represent your company. Jason Seiden, the co-founder and CEO of Ajax Social Media, calls it profersonal: the inherent intertwining of our personal and professional personas online. You can read more on my thoughts on this important issue here. Suffice it to say, however, that employees need to realize that anything they say online can impact their professional persona, and that it is our job as employers to help educate our employees about living in a “profersonal” world.
3. Training, training, training. Teaching employees about the meaning of “profersonalism” is just one part of the training puzzle. The best way to limit employee social media problems is to invest some time and money into training your employees about these issues. Having a policy is step one in this process, but training your employees on what that policy means is steps two through ten (at least).
4. Allow for brain breaks. We ask an awful lot of our employees. It’s rare to find a nine-to-five job these days. If your employees are working 45, 50, or 50-plus hours per week, what’s the harm if they spend a few minutes during the day checking Facebook. Workplace social media is not a technology problem, it’s a performance problem. Thus, technological solutions will not work. You need to treat social media abuse as a performance problem. If an employee is spending so much time on Facebook that he or she cannot complete the job, then provide counseling or discipline. If an employee posts something that harms the business, counsel, discipline, or fire. Treating the problem by shutting off the technology will not cure the problem; it will just take if off your network. 

Facebook might not be Facebook in five years. But, rest assured, something else will take its place. Social media is not going anywhere. Employers need to embrace this reality, or face a workforce they do not understand and cannot hope to control.

What does the ADA say about employee medical information and social media?

The ADA protects, as confidential, employee medical information obtained by an employer.

Last year, I asked the following questions about the impact of social media on this confidentiality obligation:

What happens, however, when an employee suffers an on-the-job injury and a supervisor shares information about the injury on a Facebook wall or Twitter page? Or, what about when a supervisor posts about a co-workers illness? I can be as innocuous as, “I hope John Smith has a quick recovery from cancer,” or spiteful, like, “I can’t believe John Smith has cancer and I have his workload while he’s out on medical leave.”

At the time, my questions were hypothetical, as no court had yet to address the issue. A few weeks ago, however, an Indiana federal court—in Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics—began sketching an answer. 

George Shoun took a few weeks off from work to recover from a workplace injury, Jane Stewart, a co-worker, knew about his injury because she was responsible for processing his work-comp claim. Stewart went on her personal Facebook page and posted the following about Shoun: “Isn’t [it] amazing how Jimmy experienced a 5 way heart bypass just one month ago and is back to work, especially when you consider George Shoun’s shoulder injury kept him away from work for 11 months and now he is trying to sue us.” 

Shoun sued his employer, claiming that Stewart’s Facebook post violated the ADA’s confidentiality requirements by “deliberate[ly] disclos[ing] [his] medical condition to another person.”

The court denied the company’s motion to dismiss Shoun’s lawsuit. The company claimed that its employee had not violated the ADA because Shoun had voluntarily disclosed his medical condition by filing an earlier iteration of his ADA lawsuit before Stewart made her Facebook post. The court disagreed, concluding that Shoun had not voluntarily disclosed his medical condition to Stewart or anyone else at the company; he only disclosed it via a court filing.

All is not lost for employers, however. The court made a clear distinction between unprotected medical information that an employee volunteers to co-workers and protected medical information that an employer learns via an employer-sponsored medical examination or program.

Despite this glimmer of hope, employees need to be very careful when discussing a co-worker’s health on social media. And, employers need to train their employees about the ADA’s confidentiality rules and the extension of these rules to the 24/7 world of social media. Employees must understand that confidential medical information—workers’ compensation claims, FMLA claims, reasonable accommodation requests, and other medical information related to the performance of the job—is off-limits for discussion. 

Social media is informal and instantaneous. Employees often post before they think about the implications of what they are posting. ADA violations are likely the furthest from one’s mind when posting about a co-worker’s injury or medical issue. A policy statement—and, more importantly, training—on this issue could save you from a disability discrimination lawsuit down the road.

Is it ethical to check jurors’ social media accounts?

Every jury trial starts with what is called voir dire—a question-and-answer session between the lawyers and the pool of potential jurors. As lawyers, we are trying to deselect those jurors whom we feel would be unfairly biased against our case or our client. It is much more an art than a science, and the more information we can gather about potential jurors, the more educated of a decision we can make that a juror is not the right fit for our case. 

Recently, the American Bar Association made this information gathering a little bit easier. In an ethics opinion (h/t: ABC News), the ABA gave lawyers the green light to view jurors’ and potential jurors’ publicly available Internet information, which, for example, could include their Facebook or Twitter musing. 

The Internet is a treasure trove of information about jurors. You could learn their political leanings, religious background, and all about their jobs and families. In short, you could learn the entire backstory of a “connected” juror.

But, do you want to? Just because this information gathering is ethical does not mean it’s strategically wise. By using the Internet as a basis for questions about a potential juror, you will clue the entire pool of jurors in on the fact that you’ve been trolling online for information about them. They might view your ethical conduct as a creepy invasion of their privacy. Voir dire is as much about you learning about the jury as it is about the jury learning about you. In other words, you don’t want to piss off the jury during voir dire. If you lose credibility before the trial even starts, what chance do you have to win the case?

So, lawyers, my take is that Facebook-ing potential jurors presents more of a risk to damaging your credibility with the jury than any benefit you will receive from learning information to help with the inexact science of voir dire. And, if you choose to research jurors online, keep that choice private, and don’t let the jury know you’ve been trolling them. It’s not worth the risk of the jury punishing you for it from the privacy of their deliberations.

NLRB judge gives booby prize to Hooters' workplace policies

In Hooters of Ontario Mills [pdf], an NLRB Administrative Law Judge found that a California franchisee of Hooters unlawfully fired a waitress for complaining about a bikini contest that she perceived as fixed. In the same decision, the ALJ also concluded that the restaurant maintained numerous illegal polices in its employee handbook.

Alexis Hanson, a Hooter Girl in an Ontario, California, outpost of the beer-and-wings establishment, complained to management that she believed that bar’s annual bikini contest was rigged. After the contest, she was terminated for “cursing at” the winner and the store’s Marketing Director. When she protested that she hadn’t cursed at anyone, the manager changed her tune and told Hanson, “Okay. Well, then you are being terminated for your negative social media posts.”

The ALJ concluded that Hanson’s discharge was unlawfully motivated by her protected concerted activity (i.e., her complaints to the manager about the bikini contest). The ALJ was persuaded by the fact that the employer had failed to conduct an investigation before firing Hanson, and also by its shifting reasons for her termination. 

The ALJ also concluded that a variety of policies in the restaurant’s employee handbook were overly broad violations of employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity:

• NEVER discuss tips with other employees or guests. Employees who do so are subject to discipline up to and including termination.
• Insubordination to a manager or lack of respect and cooperation with fellow employees or guests may result in discipline up to and including termination.
• Disrespect to our guests including discussing tips, profanity or negative comments or actions may result in discipline up to and including termination.
• The unauthorized dispersal of sensitive Company operating materials or information to any unauthorized person or party may result in discipline up to and including termination. This includes, but is not limited to, recipes, policies, procedures, financial information, manuals or any other information in part or in whole as contained in any Company records.
• Be respectful to the Company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors. Refrain from posting offensive language or pictures that can be viewed by coworkers and clients. Refrain from posting negative comments about Hooters or coworkers. In all cases, NEVER publish any information regarding a coworker or customer.
• Any other action or activity that the Company reasonably believes represents a threat to the smooth operation, goodwill or profitability of its business may result in discipline up to and including termination.

What are the takeaways from this case?

1. These employees were non-union. This case serves as a reminder that the NLRA’s protected-concerted-activity rules apply to union and non-union shops.
2. It’s debatable whether complaints about a workplace bikini contest constitute protected concerted activity. In this case, however, the ALJ appeared to be more persuaded by what the manager did not do in response to the complaints, as opposed to what the employee complained about. The manager did not investigate, and did not maintain a consistent reason for the termination. In other words, the reasons given for the terminated seemed to be a pretext to cover up something else—retaliation for Hanson’s protected concerted activity. The moral of this story? No matter the situation, thorough investigations and maintain a consistent story will save your bacon in many workplace lawsuits.
3. As often happens in theses cases, the termination served as an entre for the NLRB to review (and overturn) workplace policies as overly broad. If you don’t want the NLRB to see your policies, don’t fire employees for protected concerted activity. Most of these cases get to the Board because someone was fired, not because someone just decided, out of the blue, to challenge a handbook.