Alabama Employment Law Report : Alabama Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel J. Burnick : Sirote & Permutt Law Firm

Facebook Photos Defeat FMLA Interference and Retaliation Claims.  Sara Jaszczyszyn worked for Advantage Health Physician Network as a part-time clerical employee.  During the employment process, she disclosed that she had a prior back injury related to a car accident which required two surgeries.  She stated she had not had any recent back problems, and passed a pre-employment physical.  She was promoted to a full time position in the HR department, and then was transferred to a customer service representative position.  After 9 months, her back pain got worse, and her doctor took her off work for an 8 day period ending September 7.  Advantage recommended that she fill out FMLA paperwork, and placed her on intermittent FMLA leave.  On September 22, her doctor submitted another Certification, indicating she would not be able to work from September 10 to October 5, and later continued the time off through October 26.  On October 3, while she was "totally incapacitated" per her doctor's certification, Ms. Jaszczyszyn spent 8 hours at a local Polish Festival, consuming adult beverages.  Of course, she posted pictures of herself at the festival, and left her supervisor several voice mail messages stating that she would not be be able to be at work on October 5 due to her pain.  A co-worker notified her supervisor of Jaszczyszyn's adventures, and the incident was reported up the chain of command, including a consultation with Advantage's counsel.  After conducting an investigation, including interviewing Zsazsa's, Advantage terminated her employment based on fraud.  She sued alleging FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation.  The 6th Circuit held that in order to prove a retaliation claim, plaintiff must prove intent to discriminate, and she failed to do so.  The Court further found that intent is not a necessary element of the interference claim, and Advantage's "Honest Belief" in the justification of it's decision would defeat an interference claim. 

Practice Pointer.  As usual, the facts of this specific case determined the outcome.  Of critical importance was the fact that the employer conducted an investigation after it learned of plaintiff's conduct as found on her Facebook page.  This gave plaintiff an opportunity to explain what happened, which she could not do.  As such, Advantage had the legal right to terminate her.  Without an investigation, the result may have been different.

Cumberland School of Law's 19th Annual Employment Law Update.  I am fortunate to be able to present at this seminar, to take place this Friday, November 16.  I will be on a panel with Magistrate Judge John Ott and plaintiff attorney Heather Leonard on the topic of"Sex, Drugs & Rock-n-Roll:  The Impact of Social Media in an Employment Case from Start to Finish".  Other topics include Alabama's revised immigration law, employment issues in state court, "Hot Topics" (FLSA, Title VII, NLRB) and Ethical Dilemmas for Litigators during Discovery and Trial.  It is not too late to register:  you can visit Cumberland's CLE page for more information and to register. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Voting Laws in Alabama.  As we all know by now, election day is Tuesday, November 6.  What do the laws of Alabama require Employers to do for their employees?  ALL Alabama employees are entitled to take no more than one hour of leave to vote, if the employee is registered to vote.  It is important to note that the polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and the leave is NOT required if the employee is not scheduled to begin work within 2 hours of the polls opening, or end work within one hour of the polls closing.  Any employee wishing to take this leave must give reasonable notice, and the employer may set the hours for which the employee may leave to vote.  Finally, any Alabama employers with more than 25 employees are legally obligated to permit any employee who is a  properly appointed election official to take leave on election days to perform their election duties.  No matter who you may vote for, remember to please vote!!!!

Service Dogs and the ADA.  In another one of those I can't make this stuff up stories, the owner of Billy Bob's Beds allegedly kicked an Iraqi war veteran, who helped with the capture of Saddam Hussein, and his service dog out of his San Antonio, Texas mattress store, and told him to "go occupy Wall Street".  According to the NY Daily News, a lawsuit has been filed by Adan Gallegos, a disabled veteran, after he, his service dog, Bootz and another family member went to Billy Bob's to pick up a pre-purchased mattress and were kicked out.  According to the suit, the store owner became irate when he saw the dog because the store has a no-pet policy.  After Gallegos tried to explain about the service dog, the owner said "No one could make him do anything in his own building".  Gallegos has suffered from depression, PTSD and other emotional conditions linked to combat after returning home.  Billy Bob had offered a free mattress to Gallegos and a specially sized mattress for Bootz to drop the claim.  Billy Bob's lawyer is quoted as saying "My client regrets the way things occurred', Billy Bob was not aware of the governmental regulations and that he is a small business owner with 8 employees who need their jobs. 

Practice pointer.  Service dogs and other service animals are allowed to enter businesses pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Refusal to permit legitimate service animals can result in expensive and time consuming litigation and very bad publicity. 

 Homewood Police Officer Fired for Inappropriate Text Messages.  According to Al.com, 46 year old Mike Jackson,a 15 year veteran and Homewood's 2010 Officer of the Year, is appealing his termination after being fired for sending inappropriate texts to an 18 year old woman.  He stopped the woman on August 8, 2012, in Homewood, and his dash camera was turned off as the car pulled over.  The traffic stop was not listed on his daily report, and there was no record of him calling dispatch.  The woman told authorities that he stopped her for no reason, except to talk to her.  She started getting texts from him, asking if she would meet him at a restaurant, calling her sexy and that he saw her pictures on facebook and she was "gorgeous".   After she complained, she received a text from Jackson asking her to call him.  She called, and she says he begged her to "vouch for him and to say he didn't pull her over for no reason".  Jackson was terminated on September 24.  Jackson claims that the incident was a pretext for firing him due to his age and disability, alleging that younger officers and non-disabled officers have committed worse infractions without being terminated.  He is also claiming that his due process rights were violated because he was not interviewed during the investigation, and he was not allowed to question any witnesses or present his own witnesses.  Jackson is appealing his termination to the Jefferson County Personnel Board.

Practice pointer.  Always be careful when using any type of electronic communications: text, email, social media (FB, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc).  What you say or do can get you fired, arrested or even worse.  Assume that anything sent via electronic communications will be made public. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Facebook hits 1 Billion Users.  When Facebook had it's IPO in May, it reported that it had 845 million monthly active users.  Today, Mark Zuckerberg reported that FB hit the 1 Billion mark for monthly active users, 1/7th of the world's population.  In May, it was also reported that FB had 2.7 billion likes/comments a day, 250 million photos uploaded on a daily basis, 100 billion "friendships" and 9.7 billion minutes a day were spent on FB.  These numbers have grown since May.  In comparison, as of June, Twitter had 500 million accounts, with over 100 million tweets a day, YouTube had 200 million views a day, LinkedIn had 150 million users and interest was growing in other SM sites, including Tumblr, PInterest and 4Square.

NLRB Rules on Termination of Salesman.  Over the past 1 1/2 years, I have spoken many times and have always mentioned the case of the car salesman in Illinois who was fired after 2 posts on FB. The salesman had posted critical comments about a sales event:  hot dogs were not good enough for the customers attending a large sales event at the BMW dealership he worked for.  He was compensated in part on customer satisfaction surveys as well as the number of sales he made.  He also posted pictures and comments around the same time about a vehicle accident at the adjoining Range Rover dealership, also owned by the same company who owned the BMW dealership.  He was terminated after these posts were discovered by his employer.  An Administrative Law Judge found that the comments about the sales event were protected concerted activity under the NLRA and he could not be terminated because of this.  However, the ALJ also found that the posting about the Range Rover accident was not protected concerted activity, and thus found his termination was lawful.

Practice Pointer.  The NLRB has been taking a very strong stance about policies and procedures involving the use of social media, and will continue to do so under the current administration.  All companies should review their social media policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the NLRA.  Because this is a very complicated, complex and nuanced area of the law, companies should consult their legal counsel in implementing and/or reviewing their SM policies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several mid-week updates on a variety of topics.

IMMIGRATION. 

     The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral argument on Arizona's immigration law today.  Their opinion(s) are expected in several months.  I will update you on this topic once a decision is rendered. 

     In the meantime, the Alabama Legislature is working on potential amendments to HB56.  I have not reported on this, and will not, until it becomes law.  When and if the Legislature approves revisions that Governor Bentley will sign, I will compare the new and old laws as they pertain to employment issues.

FACEBOOK PASSWORDS. 

     There has been a lot of publicity about whether or not companies can ask employees or prospective employees for passwords to their Facebook and other social media accounts.  Maryland is the first state to pass a law prohibiting this practice, although as of this time, the Governor has not signed it into law.  Many other states are considering passing such laws.  Some members of Congress are also looking into this issue, including asking the EEOC to determine if asking for passwords is coercion which could be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or the Stored Communications Act.  

     For employers that do ask for passwords to social media sites, and actually look at them, caution is advised.  Learning too much information can lead to lawsuits.  Is the employee/prospective employee a member of a protected class, such as pregnant, disabled, etc? By disciplining or refusing to hire such a person, claims could be made for alleged violations of Title VII, Pregnancy Discrimination, GINA, ADA, and other laws.  The NLRB, which is extremely active right now, may consider this practice to be a violation of the NLRA, by discouraging employees from concerted activity: communicating about the terms and conditions of their employment.  This could lead to a push for unionization by the workforce at employers who ask for passwords

UNIONIZATION. 

          Speaking of unionization, April 30 is the effective date for the new rules about how unions can be formed.  Yesterday, the Senate blocked an attempt to delay the implementation of the rules.  There is currently a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but as of now, there has been no court ruling staying the implementation of the new rules.  I posted about the new rules on December 7. 

 EEOC RULES ON TRANSGENDER PROTECTION. 

     The Los Angeles Times reported today that the EEOC has ruled that transgender individuals may file claims under Title VII.  Mia Macy worked for the Phoenix Police Department and worked with an ATF ballistics team while they were in Phoenix.  At the time Macy applied for a job and was accepted, pending a background check, with the ATF, she was a male.  After applying, Macy went through a transition and became a female.  Macy and her wife moved to California for the new job, but was told the job had been eliminated due to budget cuts.  In fact, the job had been filled with someone else.  Macy filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex and gender discrimination.  The EEOC, which had been inconsistently enforcing Title VII in cases involving transgender claims, used Macy's case to clarify it's position that Title VII does apply to claims involving transgender discrimination, and will now allow transgender individuals to file charges in all jurisdictions.  The EEOC's enforcement activities will apply in both the public and private sectors. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several weeks ago, I had the pleasure of talking to a fraternity at UAB about the impact of Social Media in the "real world".  Besides my own personal interest in this area, the impact social media has on my clients, and all the crazy stories out there, my 2 sons, 21 and 23, are regular users of social media.  Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a lot of stories on employers asking employees for the passwords to their personal social networking sites.  Although there is no law, per se, prohibiting this, it is not a good idea for many reasons.  In no particular order:

     1.  It is probably against the terms and conditions of the use agreement with the host.

     2.  Employers may find out more information than they really should know, leading to claims of illegal conduct, including discrimination based on age, race, sex, disability, GINA, etc.

     3.  Under the Stored Communications Act, it is illegal, both civilly and criminally, for an individual to access another persons social networking site.  It should be noted that the Justice Department advised Congress that it would not prosecute such violations.

In California, an employee who was responsible for the social media of her employer was injured in a car accident.  She used both company owned and personal social media sites to promote the business.  While she was recovering from her serious injuries, the company accessed her personal sites to continue promoting the company.  She sued, alleging a violation of the Stored Communications Act, and the court is allowing the case to proceed to trial.  In another case, the ex-girlfriend of an undercover detective in New Jersey was charged with identity theft after posing on line as her ex-boyfriend, and making defamatory statements about him.

Speaking of defamation, in Georgia, a Gwinett County jury recently returned an $900,000 verdict against an individual who defamed the plaintiffs (a Husband and Wife) on social media sites.  The plaintiffs had asked the jury for $48,000 for each of them.  This was only the most recent of three social media defamation cases over the past 15 months.  According to the Daily Report, each of these cases resulted in six figure verdicts.

In Washington state,  a judge has ruled that an employee who was fired after she sent her manager a number of Facebook messages about her mental state and the fact that she was thinking of killing herself would proceed to a jury trial.  Ms. Peer was seeking treatment for depression, and she was transferred to an early shift at work.  She complained to her boss about her depression, crying, stress, that she was thinking about committing suicide and that "work feels like a war zone.  I have some serious PTSD.  Walked in the building and automatically started puking this morning".  Although she had a release from her doctors, the company terminated her after she refused to have her medical providers complete accommodation paperwork.  The company, based on the Facebook comments, was "concerned that you are not able to perform your job functions without accommodation, and that attempting to perform your job functions now presents direct risks or threats." 

In New Jersey, a criminal defendant was on trial for selling 1,500 Ecstasy pills to an undercover detective.  Although the trial judge instructed the jurors on a regular basis not to conduct internet research, the foreman confirmed his thoughts through internet research that the defendant would get a minimum of 10 years in jail if found guilty.  The foreman refused to convict, resulting in a hung jury.  After 2 jurors complained separately, the trial judge found the foreman guilty of criminal contempt and fined him $500.  He was facing up o 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. 

In New Orleans, an Assistant US Attorney admitted making hundreds of posts at NOLA.com under another name concerning a criminal investigation into a landfill.  He was removed from all cases on which he commented by the US Attorney.  Among the comments he made were allegations that one of the judges "loves killers", and that the US Attorney was taking credit "for other people's hard work.  It is the assistants and agents who do the work and should be congratulated". 

I cannot make this stuff up.  It happens every day.  Be careful what you do on social networking sites and on the internet.  It can get you in a lot of trouble, fired, embarrassed, sued, arrested  or worse. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Immigration

     On Wednesday, October 5, Judge Blackburn denied requests made by the Department of Justice and a coalition of civil rights groups to delay implementation of HB 56 while on appeal.  Last week, Judge Blackburn upheld the vast majority of HB 56, while enjoining several provisions of the law.  The groups will be appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and have stated that they may seek a stay from the 11th Circuit to prevent the law from staying in effect pending the appeal.  I will post updates as they occur.

     In the meantime, there are numerous reports of students leaving schools throughout the state, workers leaving their jobs and several arrests have been made pursuant to HB 56.  Interestingly, the first arrests reported arose from a drug bust, and those arrested were from Yemen, and were not Hispanic.

NLRB

     I have previously reported that the NLRB was going to require the posting of Notification of Employee Rights effective November 14, 2011.  Because there appears to be much confusion over what businesses were covered by this requirement, the NLRB has delayed implementation of the posting until January 31, 2012.  At least 3 lawsuits have been filed seeking to prevent the NLRB from requiring this posting. 

Social Media and the NLRB

     The NLRB has been active in reviewing terminations or other disciplinary action as the result of social media posting.  I reported in February that the NLRB had contested the termination of an employee at an ambulance company.  Another social media firing case involved a BMW dealership in Chicago, where an employee posted negative comments about one of the dealership's events, when they planned to bring a hot dog cart to provide food to customers.  The salesman complained that the dealership should provide better food for it's customers.  This same salesman also took pictures of an accident that occurred when a customer was test driving a BMW and hit the accelerator instead of the brake pedal, and crashed.  These photos were posted at the same time he posted pictures of the hot dog cart.  The dealership learned of the postings the next day, and terminated the salesman.  The NLRB claimed that the posts were protected concerted activity since part of the salesman's compensation was customer satisfaction, and the postings about the hot dog cart concerned his compensation.  The NLRB administrative judge ruled that the posting about the hot dog cart was protected, but found that the posting about the accident was not, and that the dealership terminated is employment based on the accident related posting. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last November, I wrote about a case in Connecticut where the NLRB filed a complaint accusing American Medical Response of Connecticut of illegally firing an employee for posting comments on her facebook page, claiming that the posting was "protected concerted activity" under the National Labor Relations Act.  The NLRB announced that the case against AMR has been resolved by AMR agreeing to revamp its policies so they don't restrict employees rights. According to the NLRB, the settlement also included an agreement from AMR that they would not discipline or terminate employees who discussed wages and other work issues while not on the job.  The NLRA allows employees to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with co-workers and third parties. 

There was a separate private settlement agreement reached between AMR and Dawnmarie Souza, the employee who had been terminated.  I have not been able to determine the terms of that settlement at this time.

Practice pointer.  Although the AMR case involved a union work force, employers should be aware that the NLRA covers non-union work forces as well.  Many times I hear about or see policies that restrict employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, including wage information, with others.  Under the NLRA, this restriction is probably prohibited.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

                 On November 3, 2010, Legal Times reported that the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Hartford office filed a Complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. alleging that the ambulance service illegally terminated Dawnmarie Souza, for posting negative comments about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. The NLRB contends that American Medical Response wrongfully denied Ms. Souza her union representation during the investigatory review, and that the NLRB was charging that the company “maintained and enforced an overly broad blogging and internet posting policy.” The NLRB, in their press release, stated that her supervisors “threatened her with discipline because of her request for union representation….Later that day from her home computer, the employee posted a negative remark about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page, which drew supportive responses from her co-workers, which led to further negative comments about the supervisor from the employee.” Ms. Souza was fired three (3) weeks later.

Today, Molly DiBianca, in her blog, The Delaware  Employment Law Blog, reported that an employee and her supervisor were Facebook friends.  After the employee filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, the supervisor unfriended the employee.  When the employee later added a claim for retaliation, one of the facts supporting the claim was the fact that the supervisor unfriended her.  As Ms. DiBianca wrote, "The employee felt the "unfriending" was the equivalent of what getting the “cold shoulder”—just in a virtual or electronic context.  Although the cold shoulder is not the traditional type of workplace retaliation, it can constitute an adverse employment action under the Burlington Northern standard—especially when it’s one of several “bad facts” tending to show that the employee was singled out after filing a complaint."

Practice pointers.  With the NLRB entering the social networking fracas, there is one more governmental agency for employers to be concerned with when dealing with social networking in the workplace.  When considering whether to implement or change a social networking policy, employers now need to consider the concept of "protected activity" as viewed by the NLRB. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently, a trial court in New York found that the Facebook and MySpace sites of a plaintiff in a personal injury case were discoverable.  In Romano v. Steelcase, Ms. Romano fell off her chair at work and filed a lawsuit claiming that she was severely injured and had multiple surgeries on her neck and back.  She sued Steelcase, alleging that the chair she was sitting in was defective.  Romano had profiles on both Facebook and MySpace that were not publicly available and were set up as "private" pursuant to the sites' privacy settings.  Steelcase subpoenaed the information from these sites, Facebook objected, and Romano refused to consent to the release of the information.  Steelcase argued that what was publicly available on Facebook and MySpace was inconsistent with her claims in the lawsuit, and sought access to her current and past pages, including any deleted pages, even if limited to her "friends" or "connections".  The trial court relied on a decision from Canada, that held that "To permit a party claiming very substantial damages for loss of enjoyment of life to hide behind self-set privacy controls on a website, the primary purpose of which is to enable people to share information about how they lead their social lives, risks depriving the opposite party of access to material that may be relevant to ensuring a fair trial."  The Judge in the Romano case examined the language in the privacy policies of both Facebook and MySpace, which state "this information may become publicly available."  The court wrote that:

     "Thus, when Plaintiff created her Facebook and MySpace accounts, she consented to the fact that her personal information would be shared with others, notwithstanding her privacy settings.  Indeed, that is the very nature and purpose of these social networking sites else they would cease to exist.  Since Plaintiff knew that her information may become publicly available, she cannot now claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  As recently set forth by commentators regarding privacy and social networking sites, given the millions of users, "in this environment, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectations, but rather in some theoretical protocol better known as wishful thinking."

Practice pointer.  As expected, there is often useful information available on social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, Linkedin, etc, for all parties involved.  Individuals should not post anything on their sites that they expect to maintain as private: it may not happen. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, I lectured at the UAB's Social Media class that is part of the School of Business on how social media impacts the workplace.  Having two sons in college, who use social media on a regular basis, this topic is near and dear to me.  We talked about how HR managers are using online searches to check on potential and existing employees, and that improper postings may prevent one from being hired, or get an existing employee fired.  We discussed the fact that when you begin working at a new job, it is likely that at least one of your new co-employees will investigate you online to learn more about you.  So, the question becomes what is inappropriate?  The answer is not clear, since it depends on who is doing the hiring and firing.  I emphasized the use of common sense, if there is a picture, joke or comment that you would not show/tell your mother, it should not be posted on line.  These may include pictures in various states of undress, skimpy clothes, drinking, using drugs (remember Michael Phelps?), carrying firearms, racial/sexual jokes/comments, or criticizing current or past employers or supervisors.  I advised the class that there is nothing wrong with keeping a personal album of photographs from their college days, but if there is anything that is even close to being questionable, it should not be posted online.  This includes pictures that may be posted on their friend's sites, since the links can be easily traced. 

Yesterday, Stephanie Goldberg wrote an article for CNN.com entitled "Young job-seekers hiding their Facebook pages".   Ms. Goldberg's article notes that 70%of recruiters and hiring managers have accessed the Internet and rejected candidates based on what they found online.  She refers to a Microsoft survey that reveals that 79% of hiring managers use the Internet to better assess applicants.  One of the questions asked last week in class was about the possibility of setting up 2 different Facebook pages: one for professional purposes, and one for "fun" under a different name.  I advised the student that that was not a good idea, since there may be links or other ways of finding both sites. Ms. Goldberg also answered this question when she noted a student who did just this changed his alias after 2 weeks "when he realized Facebook users also can be searched by e-mail address, school and network...". 

Ms. Goldberg quotes several students who have changed their privacy settings to restrict access to their Facebook pages to only their "friends".  She even referred to a career counselor at Penn State who recommends "that students with potentially incriminating photos or posts change their name on social networking sites."  One of the students last week at UAB asked a similar question: what if i restrict access to my photographs?  My response to that question was what if the HR person interviewing you asks you during the interview to access your Facebook page?  If you say no, at least in Alabama, which is an employee at will state, you may not be hired.  If you say yes, and permit access, and there is inappropriate material, you may not be hired.  So, it boils down to why take the chance.

Practice pointer.  Any employee or perspective employee needs to seriously consider what information is available about him/her on the Internet: if it is inappropriate, it may have an adverse impact on your employment.  This is true even if access is restricted to your own social networking sites or you use a alias: there are ways gain access, both legally and illegally.  The bottom line is to use common sense:  if you would not want your mother so see the picture or hear the joke, don't put it on the Internet. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Facebook, Inc. effective Saturday, June 13th, announced that users of the Facebook website will be allowed for the first time to create personalized URLs for their Facebook pages (facebook.com/yourname). There is a risk that some Facebook users will attempt to incorporate third party brands into their personalized Facebook usernames.

Facebook, Inc. has created an online form for rights owners of registered trademarks interested in preventing their trademarks from being registered as usernames by Facebook users.  Unfortunately, time to register your trademark has expired. 

Trademark owners, if there is an infringement on your trademark, can file their complaint on the Facebook platform by submitting relevant information to Facebook, Inc. through their trademark protection contact form. 

Practice Pointer.  If you have a registered trademark that you want to protect, I would recommend that you check Facebook on a regular basis in the event  someone else does is using your trademark. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several weeks ago, I gave a presentation on behalf of Sterling Educational Services to a number of attorneys and HR professionals entitled "Employee Privacy In The Workplace".  I addressed a number of areas, including employee privacy, evaluating performance and employee off-duty misconduct.  During the presentation, the majority of the questions dealt with social networking and privacy issues involving the internet and other electronic devices.  Several recent artilces that appeared in the Birmingham News demonstrate how the internet and other electronic advancements continue to outpace the corporate world.  On April 15, an article by Mary Orndorff dealt with several Alabama Congressmen who use Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and Youtube.  On the same day, an article appeared concerning police and fire agences using Twitter to communicate that was published by Carrie Antlfinger with the AP.  Today, an article by Ian Rapoport appeared in the sports section about the University of Alabama football coaches using Twitter for recruiting purposes.  Another articlesappeared this week dealing with the use of GPS devices in divorce cases.

With technology continuing to advance at a rapid pace, it is advisable for employers to have the appropriate policies and procedures to deal with the use of Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, Myspace, Youtube and GPS devices both on company time and off of company time.  Many disgruntled employees post their views in the public domain, which may have an adverse impact on their company.  Others post positive views, which would be beneficial to the company.  Some policies are a single paragraph, while others are multiple pages long. What it comes down to is be respectful, and if you can't say it to your mother, don't say it on the internet!!

Practice Pointer.  It is advisable for employers to have a policy tailored to their needs concerning social networking.  The policy needs to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, as technology continues to advance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks