ILNews

DTCI: Top 10 issues employers should know about social networking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Libby Valos Moss and Aubrey Kuchar

It is likely that most of you reading this article use some form of social media, whether it be for business or personal use. If you are not using social media, you have at least heard people talk about Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and blogs. What most employers do not think about is the way social media should or should not affect your decisions about your employees. The following is a list of issues that arise when discussing social media and its impact on employment issues. While the list is not exhaustive, it is designed to get employers to begin thinking about social media and its impact on their business and, more important, how to protect themselves

moss-libby-valos-mug Moss

1. Federal statutes may or may not protect employees.

The Stored Communications Act was enacted to ensure the confidentiality of electronic communications. The SCA makes it a criminal offense to “(1) intentionally access without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains … [an] electronic communication while it is in electronic storage.” 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)(1)-(2). Generally speaking, the communications protected by the SCA are only those in which an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If an employer makes clear that certain communications are unprotected (i.e., establishes a social media policy), or an employee puts information on publicly available social media, the employee likely will find no protection under the SCA.

2. Indiana has no state law regarding cybervetting.

Currently Indiana has passed no law regarding cybervetting. As other states are developing laws, we can expect only that Indiana will be sure to follow.

kuchar-aubrey-mug Kuchar

3. Beware of how you “came to know” information.

Should employers use information they found on the Internet to make employment decisions, they must be careful to only use information publicly posted or given explicitly to them by the employee himself. In Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), Pietrylo, an employee of Houston’s restaurant, started a group on MySpace.com where employees could “vent about any BS we deal with at work without any outside eyes spying in on us. This group is entirely private, and can only be joined by invitation.” Pietrylo invited other employees to the group, including Karen St. Jean. St. Jean became an authorized member of the group.

While dining at the home of TiJean Rodriguez, a Houston’s manager, St. Jean accessed the group through her MySpace profile on Rodriguez’s home computer and showed Rodriguez the group page. St. Jean then provided the password to other managers at their request. Although St. Jean stated that she was never explicitly threatened with any adverse employment action, she gave her password to the managers solely because they were members of management and she thought she “would have gotten in some sort of trouble.” Ultimately, a manager terminated Pietrylo and another employee due to concerns that the content of the MySpace group would affect the operations of Houston’s, specifically by contradicting Houston’s four core values: professionalism, positive mental attitude, aim to please approach, and teamwork.

The terminated employees sued Houston’s, and a trial was held. The jury found in favor of the employees and awarded them punitive damages. The jury found Houston’s violated the SCA when its managers accessed the MySpace page without the members’ authorization to join the group, but instead pressured St. Jean to give them her password.

On appeal as to the award of punitive damages, the court held that although Houston’s has a right and obligation to protect its employees and managers from harassment or humiliation and to protect the core values of the restaurant, the jury’s findings show the jury did not believe the method used by Houston’s to protect those values was proper. The jury determined that Houston’s knowingly accessed the stored communications without authorization several times. The jury was not persuaded by Houston’s claimed lack of knowledge of “non-authorization.” Furthermore, the court determined that the jury had sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably infer that Houston’s acted maliciously in repeatedly accessing the group via St. Jean’s password due to St. Jean’s feelings that she had been coerced into providing her password to managers.

One of the many lessons from this litigation is that an employer should be very cautious in making employment decisions based on information not publicly disseminated on the Internet. Further, employers should never request an employee to provide a password to a site that cannot be publicly accessed.

4. Develop a policy and apply it uniformly.

It behooves employers to develop a uniform policy for both internal and external Internet use. Internal Internet use occurs when the employer or employee use social networking websites as a function of their jobs. Internal Internet policies that employers may want to consider include notifying employees that their Internet usage is being monitored at work. Also, the employer should notify employees that dissemination of confidential information, negative comments about the employer or fellow employees, and accessing certain websites may be grounds for discipline.

External Internet use occurs when employers use social media websites to research applicants. This is also known as cybervetting. External Internet policies that employers may want to consider are listing the social media websites that will be searched for every applicant, specifying the information that the employer hopes to glean from those websites, and whether current employees will be investigated periodically. Once a policy is developed, as with all employment policies, the employer must apply it uniformly to prevent claims by its employees.

5. Certain screenings of social media websites may be acceptable.

Employer screenings of job applicants’ social media websites are becoming increasingly common. Prospective employers may be looking for signs of illegal activity, negative comments about prior employers and coworkers, and photographs of unprofessional behavior. Information gained from a Google search may be acceptable cybervetting since it is public information. Information that may be found from a simple Google search includes public postings, public blogs, and even the initial photograph on Facebook. In fact, employers may need to cybervet applicants to avoid a future claim of negligent hiring. However, information from privacy-protected social networking pages and blogs may be off limits, as described in more detail in the Pietrylo case. To date, one of the few industries that has guidelines for cybervetting is law enforcement as found in its study, “Developing a Cybervetting Policy for Law Enforcement,” published in December 2010. The study provides a thoughtful analysis of both proper and improper usage of cybervetting.

6. Do not allow information posted on social media to become the basis of an illegal employment action.

When an employer makes hiring decisions or adverse employment actions, such decisions or actions must be based on unbiased, nondiscriminatory considerations. While decisions based on race, color, gender, disability, age, and national origin are prohibited, an employer may come across information relating to these factors inadvertently by searching employees’ social media pages. For example, if an employer visits a competent employee’s Facebook page and learns that the employee practices a religion to which the employer is vehemently opposed and demotes or fires that employee, the employer’s knowledge gained through social media may form the basis of an employment discrimination claim. The employer will have to show that a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason formed the basis for the decision to defend the employee’s claim.

7. Employees can express views without retaliation.

Once an employee has alleged an adverse employment action based on a biased or discriminatory reason, the employer cannot retaliate against that employee based on knowledge gained through access to an employee’s postings on social media. If the employee’s “opposition” to an unlawful discriminatory practice by the employer appears on an employee’s social networking site or blog, adverse action taken by the employer could lead to a retaliation claim by the employee.

8. Content posted on social media can be discoverable.

When an employee brings a claim against his employer, a question often arises as to whether information posted by an employee on a social media website is discoverable. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana addressed this issue in EEOC v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010). The court acknowledged that content on the employee’s Facebook and MySpace pages were not shielded from discovery simply because the accounts were “locked” or “private” because any concerns with confidentiality could be addressed with an appropriate protective order. Simply Storage was able to discover the content of the employees’ communications, third-party communications, photographs, and videos posted to their Facebook and MySpace pages, with some limited scope, because the employees claimed emotional distress caused by the alleged sexual harassment of a supervisor. The court reasoned, therefore, it is reasonable to expect severe emotional or mental injury to manifest itself in the content of the employee’s social media pages. Therefore, based upon the specific claims made by an employee, the content of social media pages can be discoverable.

9. Be careful who your “friends” are.

While it should go without saying that employers should be cautious about “friending” employees on Facebook, realistically an employer may feel compelled to accept a friend request from an employee as a gesture of goodwill. However, communication on Facebook can blur the professional relationship of employer and employee and cause a strained work environment later. Just as attorneys must be cautious about the ethical considerations of friending judges, bailiffs, or court reporters, and unrepresented parties to litigation, employers should be cautious of the consequences associated with being “friends” with employees on Facebook.

10. Ultimately, all employers should use their best judgment when it comes to social media in the workplace.

As the adage goes, the only thing that stays the same is change. Technology is rapidly changing, making it faster and easier for people to post their thoughts and photographs for all to see. As a function of the ease of sharing information, employers have increased access to that information. Simple curiosity is enough to make employers want to look at what employees post. And there are good business decisions that can be made based on the information employers find. However, employers should be cautious as they surf the Internet – they may continue to use it as a tool to garner information but, in short, should access only public information and do so uniformly and in accordance with their own written policies.•

Libby Moss and Aubrey Kuchar are partners in the Indianapolis office of Kightlinger & Gray. Kuchar chairs the Worker’s Compensation Section of the DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT