CLICK ON EACH FILE IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN TO SEE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS. If no column is present: click Bookmarks or Pages on the left side of the window. If no icons are present: Click V iew, select N avigational Panels, and chose either Bookmarks or Pages. If you need assistance or to register for the audio portion, please call Strafford customer service at 800-926-7926 ext. 10 Social Networking Websites: Employment Law Pitfalls Avoiding Discrimination, Violation of Privacy, and Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims presents Today's panel features: Christopher J. Murphy, Partner, Saul Ewing, Philadelphia Marcia N. Jackson, Counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Dallas Wayne E. Pinkstone, Partner, Fisher & Phillips, Radnor, Pa. Tuesday, August 18, 2009 The conference begins at: 1 pm Eastern 12 pm Central 11 am Mountain 10 am Pacific The audio portion of this conference will be accessible by telephone only. Please refer to the dial in instructions emailed to registrants to access the audio portion of the conference. A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A
59
Embed
Social Networking Websites: Employment Law Pitfallsmedia.straffordpub.com/products/social-networking... · 8/18/2009 · Avoiding the Pitfalls Current Trends - - Blurring the Lines
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CLICK ON EACH FILE IN THE LEFT HAND COLUMN TO SEE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS.
If no column is present: click Bookmarks or Pages on the left side of the window.
If no icons are present: Click View, select Navigational Panels, and chose either Bookmarks or Pages.
If you need assistance or to register for the audio portion, please call Strafford customer service at 800-926-7926 ext. 10
Social Networking Websites: Employment Law Pitfalls
Avoiding Discrimination, Violation of Privacy, and Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims
presents
Today's panel features:Christopher J. Murphy, Partner, Saul Ewing, Philadelphia
Marcia N. Jackson, Counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, DallasWayne E. Pinkstone, Partner, Fisher & Phillips, Radnor, Pa.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The conference begins at:1 pm Eastern12 pm Central
11 am Mountain10 am Pacific
The audio portion of this conference will be accessible by telephone only. Please refer to the dial in instructions emailed to registrants to access the audio portion of the conference.
A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A
Avoiding the PitfallsCurrent Trends - - Blurring the Lines
Between Professional and Private Lives – Potential Labor and Employment Law Implications of Social Networking (“SN”): Twitter®, Facebook®, MySpace®, LinkedIn®And Whatever Tomorrow Will Bring. . . .
Avoiding the PitfallsStatistics Regarding Utilization of SN Sites*:Management –
• 74% believe such sites put firm/brand reputation at risk
• 15% consider these risks at the Board level• 17% have risk mitigation policy/program*“Social Networking and reputational risk in the work place” Deloitte LLP 2009 Ethics & Workplace Survey results: Available at http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_2009_ethics_workplace_survey_150509.pdf
Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, C.A. No. 06-5754 (D.N.J.) – after being terminated for posting derogatory statements on a password protected MySpace account, several employees of the Houston’s restaurant chain sued their employer for violating the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-11, for improperly accessing those restricted postings. After a five-day jury trial, the company was found liable for violating the SCA. Although the damages awarded were nominal, plaintiffs’ counsel has sought $125,000 in attorney’s fees.
NLRA Issues -- Section 7 protects employees' right to form, join and assist labor organizations, engage in collective bargaining, and to engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. This protection typically extends to comments/complaints regarding “terms and conditions” of employment. For example, a rule broadly prohibiting discussion of wages is facially violative of the NLRA and an unfair labor practice. See Guardsmark v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Disciplining an employee for violating such a rule is also an unfair labor practice. The Labor Board and the Courts are just beginning to grapple with how e-mail fits into the federal labor paradigm. See Guard Publishing Company v. NLRB, 571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Employees posting workplace-related commentary on SNs is the “next frontier” in this evolving landscape and it fill unfold under a pro-union/pro-employee Labor Board.
Doe v. XYZ Corp., 382 N.J. Super. 122 (App. Div. 2005) – negligence-based cause of action recognized against employer for failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to non-employee third-parties (employee’s wife and minor daughter) arising from employee’s improper use of computer systems to post child pornography on the Internet.
Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 408 N.J. Super. 54 (App. Div. 2009) – notwithstanding comprehensive electronic communications policy, an employee’s e-mails to her counsel, sent using employer’s computer systems and a personal e-mail account, were covered by the attorney/client privilege. These e-mails were discovered after employee resigned and sued the Company for discriminating against her. Case remanded for, inter alia, consideration of sanctions against counsel.
“Domelights.com” Case (The Guardian Civic League v. Philadelphia Police Department, Civil Action No. 09-03148) –class action suit by organization representing black police officers against police department and others alleging hostile work environment and other civil rights violations relating to the maintenance of a web site, www.domelights.com, allegedly containing racially offensive material. The website allegedly was maintained by white police officers, including at least one supervisor. The suit further alleges that police department management was aware of the website and its content.
Yoder v. University of Louisville, 2009 WL 2406235 (W.D.Ky. 2009) – nursing student reinstated after being dismissed from nursing school for posting on MySpace; court’s decision based on inadequacies in the school’s honor code and confidentiality agreement.
Key v. Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson, 2009 WL 1684412 (E.D. Va. 2009) – law school student’s claims based on his dismissal from law school for postings on Facebook and school-related website dismissed on summary judgment.
Spanierman v. Hughes, 2008 WL 4224483 (D. Conn. 2008) – high school teacher’s claims related to the non-renewal of his contract dismissed on summary judgment; the teacher had posted materials deemed inappropriate on MySpace.
Christopher J. Murphy, Esquire15th and Market StreetsCentre Square West, 38th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19102Phone: 215.972.7140Fax: 215.972.2294Email: [email protected]
• Use of external blogs/social networking sites to vet applicants
• Can give clues to an applicant’s analytical skills, communication skills, tact, and general maturity
• Can provide insight as to how others feel about the applicant
• Can help potentially avoid negligent hiring claim
3
"Facebook IQ"Some recruiters look at Facebook pages to get an estimate of the individual’s IQ, personality traits and whether they would be a "good fit"
• Are they outgoing, as might be needed for a sales job?• Do they use creative phrases and correct grammar?• What books or activities do they reference (if any)?• Number of "friends" – social skills• Look at comments by "friends" for more insight
4
Background Checks Online?One recruiter reported that "I’ve used MySpace to do some ‘reference checking’ to see if a candidate would be a good hire. One such candidate foolishly posted publicly that he had enlisted in the army but would try to ‘get out of it’ if he found a job. Needless to say, we didn’t bring him in for an interview."
5
Pre-Employment – Potential Risks• Sites may allow potential employers to discover "protected"
information (e.g., age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, political views, etc.)
• Possible Solution• If you choose to examine external social networks, have non-
decision maker conduct search and filter out information related to protected characteristics before passing along to hiring manager
• Have searches run by employer and not third party to avoid potential issues under the Fair Credit Reporting Act or state-specific statutes
• Carefully consider criteria in determining how and when to use online social networking sites in evaluating applicants
6
During The Employment Relationship
To what extent should employers monitor employees’ use of social networks, and to the extent monitoring is conducted, what can/should employers do with information obtained from online social networks?
7
Busted!• Nintendo employee Jennifer Zenner posted an "inexcusable
behavior" blog, listing insulting comments about her fellow female workers; not well received
• Jeffrey Spanierman: teacher who was too friendly with his students. He had a MySpace page which was considered too "peer-like" and the school board asked him to take it down. He did, but (proving their "peer-like" point) just put up a new one. Fired.
• University of New Mexico Hospital workers took cell phone pictures of patients and posted them on MySpace. Also fired.
• Swiss employee took day off work for migraines and said she couldn’t work in front of a computer – then was active on Facebook that day. Also fired.
• Youtube/Facebook searches: “Fired for Facebook”
8
To What Extent Can (And Should) Employers Monitor This Conduct?
Limitations on monitoring off-duty conduct:
• Privacy issues• Laws restricting such monitoring• Common law protections against invasion of
privacy • Constitutional protections: First and Fourth
Amendment claims• Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986,
18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.
9
Other Considerations• State laws
• At least five states (CA, CO, CT, NY, ND) have enacted "lifestyle" statutes prohibiting discrimination of lawful, off-duty conduct
• OSHA• False Claims Act• Privacy issues
10
Potential Problems For Employers – During The Employment Relationship• Possible liability for torts committed by employee
including defamation of company employees, customers, or competitors, invasion of privacy, negligence, etc. ("cybersmearing")
• Employers have no duty to monitor comments made on electronic bulletin board, but do have a duty to stop co-employee harassment "in settings that are related to the workplace" if they know or have reason to know such harassment is taking place (Blakely v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 751 A.2d 538 (N.J. 2000))
• Employers may have defamation cause of action against former employees for information posted on blogs (Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 106 P.3d 958 (Cal. 2005))
11
Potential Problems (Cont’d)• Possible liability for harassment or discrimination
claims• Possible intellectual property infringement• Possible dissemination of trade secrets or company
After The Employment Relationship • LinkedIn (or similar) “Review" or “Recommendation” Risks
• Some employers give a "review" of their employees, or “recommend” individuals on LinkedIn and other such sites
• If an employee is terminated and the good review stands on the website, this may be considered tantamount to giving a positive reference of a not-so-positive employee. Also could be used in a lawsuit to contradict a bad formal performance review
• As a general rule, only post/provide reviews to the same extent you would provide written references
• Even more of an area for concern since it is a public forum, andnot information provided solely to one other potential employer (and thus arguably privileged)
• The reverse is true should a bad "review" appear – may be used to support a claim of unlawful interference with future employment
15
After The Employment Relationship Issues (Cont’d)
• Use in potential litigationDepositionsJury selectionMediation/settlement leverage
• Many as yet unanswered questions concerning discovery
Fisher & Phillips LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW
Solutions at Work®
Atlanta · Charlotte · Chicago · Columbia · Dallas · Denver · Fort Lauderdale · Houston · Irvine · Kansas City · Las VegasLouisville · New Jersey · New Orleans · Orlando · Philadelphia · Portland ME · Portland OR · San Diego · San Francisco · Tampa
www.laborlawyers.com
Presented by:Wayne E. Pinkstone
Social Networking Websites:Employment Law Pitfalls
It is lawful and appropriate for an employer to regulate or even prohibit its employees from engaging in online social networking and internet blogging activities while on Company time, property or business.
To Ban? To Regulate? It is also becoming increasingly common
for employers to try to limit employees from posting disparaging comments about the Company, or discussing the Company’s business, while blogging and social networking by adopting a policy making it clear that such conduct is prohibited and will not be tolerated.
To Ban? To Regulate? Contrary to popular belief, employees of
private employers do not have a constitutional “free speech” right to disparage their employers and co-workers and their employer’s customers, or to publicly discuss internal business matters, while blogging or social networking on the internet.
Employees are prohibited from using the name, trademarks, logos, other identifying marks or copyright-protected material of the Company or its clients.
Best Practices - Policy Employees engaging in online social
networking and blogging activities are expected to remain respectful of the Company, and its employees, its products and services, its clients, its partners, its affiliates, its vendors and suppliers, and its competitors (and their products and services).
Best Practices - Policy Employees are prohibited from posting
any material that is obscene, vulgar, defamatory, threatening, discriminatory, harassing, abusive, hateful or embarrassing to another person or entity, and should not engage in activity that reflects or may reflect negatively on the Company, its affiliates, employees or clients.
Best Practices - Policy Harassing or discriminatory comments
may be deemed inappropriate even if the Company name is not mentioned.
If such communications in any way adversely affect work relationships, the employee may be subject to discipline and termination under the Company’s Anti-Harassment Policy.
Best Practices - Policy Employees must make it clear in any
online social networking and blogging activities that the views and opinions they express about work-related matters are their own, have not been reviewed or approved by their employer, and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of their employer.
This policy is not meant to restrict an employee’s use of Social Networking Sites and/or blogs for purely personal reasons where the employee does not identify himself or herself as an employee of the Company.
Best Practices - Policy However, any employee who identifies
himself or herself as a Company employee on his or her personal Social Networking Site profile is presenting himself or herself as a representative of the Company and is expected to ensure that the content of his or her page complies with professional standards of conduct.
Employees are strictly prohibited from listing their Company e-mail address on their profile unless the Social Networking Site or blog is used purely for Company business or professional purposes.
Best Practices – Policy Employees should expect that any
information created, transmitted, downloaded, exchanged or discussed on Social Networking Sites and/or blogs may be accessed by the Company at any time without prior notice.
– Reduce or eliminate any expectation of privacy by the employees in the company computer and email system and explain what employees should and should not do.
– Employees should expect that information exchanged on social networking sites and/or blogs may be accessed by the company at any time without prior notice.
Privacy Issues Limits on Employer Representatives:
– Let managers and supervisors know that improper disclosure of private information can subject both them and the company to liability for invasion of privacy.
– Adequately train supervisors and other management personnel regarding the policies and their enforcement to ensure consistency.
Atlanta · Charlotte · Chicago · Columbia · Dallas · Denver · Fort Lauderdale · Houston · Irvine · Kansas City · Las VegasLouisville · New Jersey · New Orleans · Orlando · Philadelphia · Portland ME · Portland OR · San Diego · San Francisco · Tampa