Westlaw Journal
VOLUME 25, ISSUE 10 / DECEMBER 14, 2010
By Nichelle Levy, Esq., and Julian Wright, Esq. Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson
Examples — and even bizarre stories — abound of employers firing employees for inappropriate social media content.
Workers are fired for offensive or harassing posts, posts that divulge confidential company or client information, posts of images of themselves in compromising situations, and posts that include negative comments about customers, superiors or their companies.
Relatively less explored are the ways in which employers may (or may not) use social media content to screen candidates during the hiring process. This article will discuss the state and federal laws, as well as recent court decisions, regarding employees’ expectations of privacy in social media that employers should consider before using information gleaned from social media sites in the hiring process.
Full Story: http://www.rbh.com/files/Publication/8743b012-b2d9-405b-b932-016108b3e675/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/020d5c06-287c-4027-bd6f-0553ac0ce74c/WLJ_Levy_JWright_DigitalDirt_Dec2010.pdf
Showing posts with label Social networks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social networks. Show all posts
Monday, October 24, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
First Facebook and now Twitter ... social media legal compliance challenges are no "LOL" matter!
Lexology.com
Foley & Lardner LLP
Scott Callen
USA
April 18 2011
Employees continue to file suits challenging company social media handbook policies and companies who discipline employee use of online tools like LinkedIn and Facebook. The New York Times recently reported, and various other media reports indicate, that absent a settlement, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to commence a legal proceeding challenging a company's social media policies and response (possible verbal reprimand) involving an employee's Twitter post related to the company's cooperation with union members.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a federal labor law that prohibits companies from violating a worker's federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions. The NLRB will commence legal proceedings claiming the company improperly restricted the employee's right to use Twitter to discuss working conditions with co-workers and implemented an unlawful social media policy that chilled employees' rights to discuss working conditions, which the NLRB will assert is a violation of Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dded1225-0d5a-4e58-a773-0420eec7a11e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-21&utm_term=
Foley & Lardner LLP
Scott Callen
USA
April 18 2011
Employees continue to file suits challenging company social media handbook policies and companies who discipline employee use of online tools like LinkedIn and Facebook. The New York Times recently reported, and various other media reports indicate, that absent a settlement, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to commence a legal proceeding challenging a company's social media policies and response (possible verbal reprimand) involving an employee's Twitter post related to the company's cooperation with union members.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is a federal labor law that prohibits companies from violating a worker's federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions. The NLRB will commence legal proceedings claiming the company improperly restricted the employee's right to use Twitter to discuss working conditions with co-workers and implemented an unlawful social media policy that chilled employees' rights to discuss working conditions, which the NLRB will assert is a violation of Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dded1225-0d5a-4e58-a773-0420eec7a11e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-21&utm_term=
Monday, August 23, 2010
Discovery of Facebook allowed in sexual harassment case
Lexology.com
Jackson Walker LLP
John Koepke
USA August 17 2010
A recent discovery order in the case of EEOC v. Simply Storage Management in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana discussed how much information from social network sites is discoverable to an employer defending a sexual harassment claim.
Two females claimed that they were subjected to sexual harassment during their employment with Simply Storage. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint on their behalf.
Simply Storage’s request for production of documents included requests for “all photographs or videos posted by claimants or anyone on [their] behalf on Facebook or MySpace [from the beginning of their employment to the present],” and requested all “updates, messages, wall comments, causes joined … activity streams … and applications for the same time period.”
Simply Storage asserted the requests were proper because the EEOC had placed the “emotional health” of the women at issue by claiming that the women had sought “medical treatment” for anxiety stemming from the alleged sexual harassment and become “depressed and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.” The EEOC argued that “production should be limited to content that directly addresses or comments on matters alleged in the complaint.”
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3bf92ed9-ea8c-41d9-bee6-c744f2042a17&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-08-23&utm_term
Jackson Walker LLP
John Koepke
USA August 17 2010
A recent discovery order in the case of EEOC v. Simply Storage Management in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana discussed how much information from social network sites is discoverable to an employer defending a sexual harassment claim.
Two females claimed that they were subjected to sexual harassment during their employment with Simply Storage. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint on their behalf.
Simply Storage’s request for production of documents included requests for “all photographs or videos posted by claimants or anyone on [their] behalf on Facebook or MySpace [from the beginning of their employment to the present],” and requested all “updates, messages, wall comments, causes joined … activity streams … and applications for the same time period.”
Simply Storage asserted the requests were proper because the EEOC had placed the “emotional health” of the women at issue by claiming that the women had sought “medical treatment” for anxiety stemming from the alleged sexual harassment and become “depressed and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.” The EEOC argued that “production should be limited to content that directly addresses or comments on matters alleged in the complaint.”
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3bf92ed9-ea8c-41d9-bee6-c744f2042a17&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-08-23&utm_term
Monday, September 28, 2009
Discriminatory Twist in Networking Sites Puts Recruiters in Peril
Workforce Management
Recruiting and Staffing
September 2009
Sourcing applicants from Twitter or LinkedIn or screening candidates through Facebook or MySpace may open employers to discrimination charges. By Fay Hansen
In the rush to cut recruiting budgets and avoid the avalanche of résumés now generated by job boards, employers are increasingly tapping professional and social networking sites as a sourcing tool.
Some employers now rely heavily or even exclusively on Twitter or LinkedIn to fill open positions. While this approach may create short-term cost savings and new efficiencies, it may also skew applicant pools and trigger discrimination lawsuits.
“Networking sites, including Twitter, exclude whole populations,” says Jessica Roe, managing partner at Bernick, Lifson, Greenstein, Greene & Liszt in Minneapolis. “We are going to end up with a very homogenous workforce. The social networks represent limited social groups and very small labor pools. It’s an enormous issue.”
According to the latest data from Quantcast, only 5 percent of LinkedIn users are black and only 2 percent are Hispanic.
“Social networking sites are problematic because the population is limited and highly selective,” Roe notes. “I anticipate more race and age claims over the next two years, and a significant portion will be from sourcing through social networking sites, where the users are generally white and age 20 to 40. We’ll see lawsuits.
“Employers don’t want to pay recruiters, so they take the path of least resistance, but they have to look very carefully at the applicant pool and cast a much broader net. Recruiters are often swept up by the latest process. Minor decisions lead to major consequences.”
Using networks for recruiting is ripe with risk for future discrimination claims, says Pamela Devata, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago.
“Sourcing from professional network sites such as LinkedIn carries a risk that the method could be challenged on discrimination grounds,” Devata says. “It represents a hiring pool that is not open to the general population. Using a limited network may have a disparate impact. If hiring through these networks can be challenged, it will be.”
Employers should consider the risk of litigation arising from disparate impact claims.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/06/feature/26/68/67/
Recruiting and Staffing
September 2009
Sourcing applicants from Twitter or LinkedIn or screening candidates through Facebook or MySpace may open employers to discrimination charges. By Fay Hansen
In the rush to cut recruiting budgets and avoid the avalanche of résumés now generated by job boards, employers are increasingly tapping professional and social networking sites as a sourcing tool.
Some employers now rely heavily or even exclusively on Twitter or LinkedIn to fill open positions. While this approach may create short-term cost savings and new efficiencies, it may also skew applicant pools and trigger discrimination lawsuits.
“Networking sites, including Twitter, exclude whole populations,” says Jessica Roe, managing partner at Bernick, Lifson, Greenstein, Greene & Liszt in Minneapolis. “We are going to end up with a very homogenous workforce. The social networks represent limited social groups and very small labor pools. It’s an enormous issue.”
According to the latest data from Quantcast, only 5 percent of LinkedIn users are black and only 2 percent are Hispanic.
“Social networking sites are problematic because the population is limited and highly selective,” Roe notes. “I anticipate more race and age claims over the next two years, and a significant portion will be from sourcing through social networking sites, where the users are generally white and age 20 to 40. We’ll see lawsuits.
“Employers don’t want to pay recruiters, so they take the path of least resistance, but they have to look very carefully at the applicant pool and cast a much broader net. Recruiters are often swept up by the latest process. Minor decisions lead to major consequences.”
Using networks for recruiting is ripe with risk for future discrimination claims, says Pamela Devata, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago.
“Sourcing from professional network sites such as LinkedIn carries a risk that the method could be challenged on discrimination grounds,” Devata says. “It represents a hiring pool that is not open to the general population. Using a limited network may have a disparate impact. If hiring through these networks can be challenged, it will be.”
Employers should consider the risk of litigation arising from disparate impact claims.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/06/feature/26/68/67/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)