On the news: Hyman on reckless employee tweets and our new President

Last Thursday morning I received a call from Mike Brookbank, a reporter for WEWS, our local ABC affiliate. “I saw your quotes on Money.com on how to post on social media about President Trump without losing your job. I’m pitching a similar story for tonight’s news. Care to be interviewed?”

Cleveland Clinic doctor feeling ill after anti-vax blog post stirs trouble

A wellness physician at the Cleveland Clinic is in hot water following his blog post on Cleveland.com, in which he argued that parents avoid vaccinating their children. The doctor, Daniel Neides, is the medical director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute.

In his post, he attacked flu shots for children and questioned the safety of childhood vaccination schedules, citing a debunked link between vaccines and autism. His byline used the Cleveland Clinic’s logo and identifies him a Cleveland Clinic physician.

Is social recruiting discriminatory?

Yesterday, I noted that the EEOC is examining the impact of “big data” on how employers reach employment decisions.

Looking at an issue and doing something about it, however, are two entirely different animals. I wonder what business the EEOC has looking at this issue at all. The EEOC’s mission is to eliminate discrimination from the workplace. Certainly, there is no claim that neutral data points intentionally or invidiously discriminate based on protected classes.

Regulating social media at work is a Sisyphean task

According to Ajilon (as reported by BenefitsPro), American employees spend 140 per year (or an average of 33 minutes per day) on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social networks. Aggregated across all employees, the survey estimates this personal time costs employers $192.4 billion each year.

These numbers, however, merely beg the questions — (1) should you care and (2) what can you do about it?

Free Speech, Social Media, and Your Job

One of the biggest misconceptions that employees hold is that the First Amendment grants them free speech rights in a private workplace. Quite to the contrary, the First Amendment right to free speech grants private-sector employees zero constitutional rights or protections.

Today, I bring you a guest post by Ellen Gipko of HubShout, which takes a deep look at this important issue, with a special focus on online speech and social media.

Court permits use of employee’s own racist Facebook posts in race-discrimination case

I read with interest this morning’s post on Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog, entitled, Court says employee’s Facebook page on race stereotypes is fair game at trial. The post discusses a recent federal court decision which permitted an employer to impeach at trial a race-discrimination plaintiff with her own racial Facebook posts.

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.