Posted

by

In early November, an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board dismissed a complaint filed against an employer, finding that the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by withdrawing rehire offers from two employees’ based on their Facebook conversation.

The two employees worked for a non-profit corporation’s teen center.  Shortly after the employees were issued rehire letters, they had a Facebook conversation regarding their work at the teen center.  The conversation included a large amount of profanity as well as statements that the employees would not ask permission to engage in certain activities; would do whatever they wanted with the center’s funds; and would generally “raise hell.”
Another employee saw the conversation and sent screenshots to the director of the teen center.  Letters rescinding the rehire offers were sent to the employees, citing concerns that they would not follow directions and could endanger the children at the teen center.

As in many recent cases, the administrative law judge found that the employees were engaged in “concerted activity” when expressing disagreement with management’s running of the teen center.  The judge noted that the Facebook conversation included discussion of (1) how the employees were treated, (2) the employer’s failure to respond to certain employee concerns, and (3) the one employee’s demotion.

However,
not every instance of concerted activity is protected.  The judge found that the employer could reasonably and lawfully conclude that the employees’
actions were not protected.  The judge noted the employer’s arguments (1)
that its funding from the government and donors could be impacted by the comments, and (2) that the safety of youth served by the teen center could be jeopardized.

While not every social media-related firing may be unlawful, employers should still be aware of the NLRB’s crackdown on social media policies.

Posted

by

On August 29, 2013, Gov. Chris Christie signed New Jersey’s social media privacy law, making New Jersey the twelfth state to enact such laws governing employers.  (Various states have enacted similar laws governing institutions of higher education.) 

Christie’s signature ends an approximately year and a half long legislative process:  the bill was first introduced on May 10, 2012.  As discussed in prior posts on this blog (New Jersey Assembly Unanimously Passes Revised Social Media Bill, New Jersey Senate Unanimously Passes Revised Social Media Bill), the bill was conditionally vetoed by Christie in May of 2013, then passed again by the Assembly in May and the Senate in August.

New Jersey should be the last state to enact such a law until the various state legislatures begin their next sessions.  But with 24 states having proposed – but not enacted – social media laws in 2013, more can be expected in the future.

Posted

by

On August 19, 2013, the New Jersey Senate passed – by a vote of 36 to 0 – a revised bill barring employers from seeking access to employees’ social media accounts. The bill was previously approved by the New Jersey Assembly on May 20, 2013, as discussed in a prior post on this blog.

A prior version of the bill also passed both houses but was conditionally vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, who expressed concerns about some of the bill’s employee-friendly provisions. Among Christie’s recommended changes was the removal of a private cause of action by employees.

The bill now awaits Christie’s signature. Though the legislature adopted all of the Governor’s recommendations, it remains to be seen whether Christie has additional concerns about the new law.

Posted

by

On July 30, 2013, the Florida Judicial Ethics Committee issued an opinion stating that a judge running for re-election may create a Twitter account for campaign purposes, but warned of potential pitfalls surrounding social media.

The opinion resulted from an inquiry submitted by an anonymous judge who plans to use a Twitter account to tweet about judicial philosophy, campaign slogans, and the candidate’s background. While the opinion is permissive, it also explains that many of Twitter’s features “could prove problematic” as a judge’s campaign tool:

  • Blocking specific followers;
  • Re-tweeting and marking tweets as favorites;
  • Creating lists of users and subscribing to lists created by other users;
  • And direct messaging that could result in ex parte communications.

To avoid these problematic aspects of Twitter, the Committee suggests that the “most sensible way” to use a Twitter account would be for the judge’s campaign manager to create and maintain the account.

The Committee’s concerns reinforce a 2009 opinion regarding the use of social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. In that opinion, the Committee stated that judges may post comments and other material on their social networking sites, but that judges are prohibited from becoming “friends” with lawyers who may appear before them.

As discussed in a previous post on this blog, opinions such as these represent the more restrictive views of social media. Earlier this year, the American Bar Association issued an opinion giving its stamp of approval to these kinds of online relationships.

Posted

by

On May 28, 2013, the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics issued an opinion stating “that the mere status of being a ‘Facebook friend,’ without more, is an insufficient basis to require recusal.” (Emphasis in original). The sole act of friending an individual on Facebook does not create an appearance of impropriety, nor does it allow the questioning of a judge’s impartiality.

The unknown justice inquired if recusal is necessary in a criminal matter in which he or she is Facebook friends with the parents or guardians of certain minors allegedly affected by the defendant’s conduct. The justice indicated that the parents are mere acquaintances and that he or she can be fair and impartial.

The Committee cited previous opinions finding that there is nothing inherently inappropriate about a judge making use of a social network. Because interpersonal relationships are unique and fact-dependent, judges must ultimately determine the nature of their relationships.

Various judicial advisory committees have weighed in on judges’ use of social media, with each reaching slightly different results.

In 2011, the Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel issued one of the most restrictive opinions, categorically prohibiting social media “friendships” between judges and court staff, law enforcement officers, social workers, attorneys, and others who may appear in the judge’s court.

Several months ago, an opinion by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility provided judges with a great deal of latitude in their online personas. While judges should disclose information believed to be reasonably relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, the mere fact than an online relationship exists is not automatically grounds for recusal. For example, a judge might disclose a social media connection with a party, lawyer, or witness, but state “that the judge believes the connection has not resulted in a relationshop requiring disqualification.” Judges must take care, however, not to publicly endorse candidates for public office by “liking” online content.

For more information, see:

Posted

by

On May 21, 2013, Washington’s governor signed a new law protecting employee social networking accounts.

The new law, which goes into effect on July 28, 2013, prevents employers from requesting, requiring or coercing an employee or applicant to disclose login information for the employee’s personal social networking account. Employers also may not ask employees to access such accounts in the employer’s presence; add the employer to the employee’s contacts; or alter third party access settings. Work-related accounts and devices paid for or supplied by the employer are exempt.

If an employer inadvertently receives login information, it is not liable for possessing the information but may not use it to access the employee’s account.

Importantly, employers may still:

  • Comply with the requirements of state or federal law;
  • Conduct investigations to comply with laws against work-related employee misconduct based on receiving information about the employee’s activity; and
  • Conduct investigations based on receiving information about the unauthorized transfer of proprietary or confidential information or financial data.

The law creates a private cause of action for employees and applicants. Prevailing plaintiffs may be awarded equitable relief, actual damages, a $500 penalty, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. However, a court may also award reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant if the judge determines that the action was frivolous and without reasonable cause.

Washington joins Maryland, Illinois, California, Michigan, Utah, Arkansas, and Colorado in enacting such laws. New Mexico has enacted similar legislation, but it prohibits access only to the accounts of prospective employees.

To read more about this law, see Substitute Senate Bill 5211.

Posted

by

On May 20, 2013, the New Jersey Assembly passed – by a vote of 77 to 0 – a revised bill barring employers from seeking access to employees’ social media accounts.

The bill incorporates changes suggested by Governor Chris Christie, including the elimination of a private cause of action. Instead, the law will be enforced by the New Jersey Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development. Employers would be subject to a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for the first violation and $2,500 for each subsequent violation.

Under the proposed law, employers may not request or require a current or prospective employee to provide a user name, password, or any other form of access to a personal social networking account. The law applies only to purely personal accounts; the law does not apply to accounts used for business purposes or policies regarding employer-issued devices.

The revised bill now awaits passage by the state Senate, where the prior version of the bill passed with a vote of 38-0.

For more information, please read the Social Media Privacy Bill.