Your employees are social media-ing at work, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it

A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center confirmed what I have long thought. Your employees are using social media a work — 77 percent of them. And I believe even that number is low.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/06/22/social-media-and-the-workplace/pi_2016-06-22_social-media-and-work_0-01/

Don’t forget about confidentiality when training your employees on social media

I’m not getting Snapchat. Maybe I’ve finally found a social channel that doesn’t fit me. Or, maybe I’m just too late to the game. Or, maybe with Twitter, and LinkedIn, and Facebook, and Instagram, and this blog, I don’t have the time or attention for one more social channel.

You know who does get Snapchat? Apparently some staffers of Australia’s Labor Party, who snapped some screens of their party’s confidential campaign strategy.

NLRB judge protects the lone wolf in Chipotle social-media firing decision #RaganDisney

I spent last Thursday and Friday in Disney World. It wasn’t a pleasure trip, although Epcot was toured during some down time. I was invited to speak at this year’s Ragan Social Media Conference, which, I have to say, was one of the best organized and produced events I’ve ever attended. It was a day-and-a-half of cutting edge information on using social media for marketing and PR. My session covered how employers can protect their brands from employee social-media missteps. It’s always fun to watch a room full of non-employment lawyers’ mouths gape when I start talking about the NLRB.

So, to anyone out there who was at my session, Chipotle Services LLC, decided earlier this week by an NLRB judge, is mandatory reading.

The case involves an employee fired by Chipotle after he took to his personal Twitter account to voice his displeasure about the state of his wages and other working conditions at Chipotle. For example, in response to a customer who tweeted “Free chipotle is the best thanks,” the employee replied, “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members only make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Another, directed at Chipotle’s communication director, concerned a lack of pay for snow days.

The NLRB judge had little trouble concluding that Chipotle had fired the employee for engaging in protected concerted activity: speech about his wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment between or among employees.

I agree that the NLRA protects tweets about wages and days off. Pay attention, however, to how this judge defines “concerted”, as it is becoming apparent that one employee, voicing his concerns to about work on social media, without any engagement from co-workers, is sufficient to constitute “concerted” protected activity:

Kennedy’s tweet concerning snow days was directed to Chipotle’s communications director but visible to others; Kennedy’s other two tweets were in response to customer postings, and likewise visible to others. All these postings had the purpose of educating the public and creating sympathy and support for hourly workers in general and Chipotle’s workers in specific. They did not pertain to wholly personal issues relevant only to Kennedy but were truly group complaints. I conclude that Kennedy’s postings constitute protected concerted activity.

In other words, as long as an employee is addressing a group complaint, the activity is concerted, regardless of whether any other employee engages.

Earlier this year, I predicted the breadth of the NLRB’s coverage of “concerted” in social-media cases:

If, as the Board suggest, employee intent is the measuring stick for whether a lone employee’s activity is concerted, then any employee’s solitary social-media post can be considered concerted merely by the employee stating an intent to initiate or induce group action. And, since social media is inherently social (i.e., group in nature), doesn’t this test suggest that all such activity is concerted.

So, we have another social media case in which an employee triumphs over an employer based on a liberal interpretation of NLRA protections. Fear not employers, for this case has a silver lining. According to Jane von Bergen of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the employee has offered to accept food vouchers in lieu of back pay: “You cannot deny that their food is delicious, but their labor policies were atrocious.” If only every case was that simple to resolve.

Court rejects customer’s claims based on harassing Facebook posts by employees

Consider the following scenario. An employee makes offensive posts on his personal Facebook page about one of your customers, which include the following:

“I seen Maurice’s bougie ass walking kahului beach road … nigga please!”

A number of other employees comment on or like the post, including a comment to “run that faka over!!! lol.”

When the customer learns of the posts and comments, he complains. You investigate and fire the offending employees.

Case over, right? Not so fast. The customer sued the employer for negligence relating to its supervision, retention, and training of the offending employees.

“Lady Murderface”, Yelp, and the National Labor Relations Act

By now, you’ve likely heard about the employee fired by Yelp for her very public blog post directed at her former employer’s CEO, criticizing her $24,000 annual salary. Here’s a particular biting excerpt:

I wonder what it would be like if I made $24,000 more annually. I could probably get the headlight fixed on my car. And the flat tire. And maybe even get the oil change and renewed registration — but I don’t want to dream too extravagantly. Maybe you could cut out all the coconut waters altogether? You could probably cut back on a lot of the drinks and snacks that are stocked on every single floor. I mean, I could handle losing out on pistachio nuts if I was getting paid enough to afford groceries. No one really eats the pistachios anyway — have you ever tried answering the phone fifty times an hour while eating pistachios? Those hard shells really get in the way of talking to hundreds of customers and restaurants a day.

Guest Post: Social Business and HR, Part 2

By Mike Wise

First, thanks again to Jon Hyman for the chance to write on a different but related topic – Social Business. As I mentioned in Part 1, I’m finding that a surprisingly high percentage of HR folks have not yet tapped into the incredible power of the Social Web. Perhaps this series will be helpful, at least at a high level. Feel free to question or comment in the Disqus form at the end of the post.

In Part 1 of this 3-part series on Social Business, the subject was Online Reputation Management. In this Part 2, the focus will be on Social Business and Internal Communications. We will finish the series in Part 3 with a look at the 3 R’s - Recruiting, Recognition, and Retention and how Social Business amplifies those efforts.

Professionalism, social media, and the workplace

An employee was recently terminated because of this post on his personal Facebook page:

#ElderlyChristmasSongs and age discrimination

Yesterday, #ElderlyChristmasSongs trended on Twitter. Yes, it’s meant to be a joke, and, yes, some were even funny. Now here’s the part where I get to play Employment Law Scrooge.

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]