social media in the workplace: legal …media accounts to access her personal facebook and twitter...
TRANSCRIPT
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS
Jill Gerdrum Axilon Law Group, PLLC
125 Bank Street, Suite 403 Millennium Building Missoula, MT 59802
406-532-2635 Fax: 406-294-9468
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 1
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS
Employers may have a valid interest in reviewing or monitoring an employee’s or
applicant’s social media pages, even when the employee’s online conduct occurs outside of
working hours. That is often the case when the employee’s conduct affects his or her job
performance or the employer’s reputation.
Consider the following examples of employee social media conduct:
(1) A Texas daycare receives reports its new employee posted:
“I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at day care. I just really
hate being around a lot of kids.”
The employee’s post spread throughout the community and was shared with
an online group with more than 8,000 members. The daycare terminated the
employee.1
(2) An emergency medical technician posts comments on a co‐worker’s Facebook
wall stating she wanted to “slap” a patient. Her employer’s compliance
officer saw the comment because she was a Facebook “friend” of the co‐
worker. When the compliance officer expressed her disapproval, the EMT
posted:
“Yes, I DO get upset on some calls when my patient goes off in the house and I
have to have a firefighter ride in with me because I fear for MY own safety. I think
that is a valid excuse for wanting to use some sort of restraints. Just saying.”
Following that post, another emergency medical technician for the company
posted:
1 Peter Holley, Day‐Care Employee Fired for Facebook Post Saying She Hates ‘Being Around a Lot of Kids.’
Washington Post (May 4, 2015).
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 2
ʺYeah like a boot to the head . . . . Seriously yeah restraints or actual HELP from
PD instead of the norm.ʺ
Both employees were terminated and sued the employer for wrongful
termination, intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.
Their privacy claims were dismissed on summary judgment.2
(3) In May 2015, after two police officers were murdered in Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, a Subway sandwich shop worker posted a celebratory photo of
herself in her Subway uniform with the post:
“2 police officers was shot in hattiesburg tonight.! ‐ GOT EM” ‐ “we can turn
this bxtch into Baltimore real quick – frfr police take away innocent people lives
everyday now & get away w/ it, f@#$ them [no mercy]”3
The post included several emoticons, including pistols and thumbs up signs.
Subway fired the employee, stating her “unfortunate choice” should not
reflect on the more than 400,000 honest, hardworking Sandwich Artists
worldwide.”
These kinds of posts can pose serious problems employers feel obligated to address.
However, consideration should be given as to whether the employer may lawfully access or
monitor employees’ social media activity, whether the employer may lawfully maintain a
social media policy, and whether the employer may lawfully discipline or terminate
employees for social media posts.
2 Sumien v. Careflite, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5331, 34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 77, 2012 WL 2579525 (Tex. App. Fort Worth
July 5, 2012); Roberts v. CareFlite, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8371 (Tex. App. Fort Worth Oct. 4, 2012). 3 http://28‐2015.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/05/ms‐subway‐employee‐fired‐following‐celebratory‐cop‐
killing‐tweets‐3152748.html
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 3
Accessing Employee Social Media Accounts A. Section 39‐2‐307, MCA – Montana Restrictions on Employer Access to Applicant and Employee Social Media Accounts.
A newly enacted Montana law restricts employer access to employee and applicant
social media accounts and protects employees from retaliation for refusing to provide social
media information in certain circumstances. The law, which was adopted in 2015, prohibits
employers from requiring employees to:
(a) disclose a user name or password for the purpose of allowing the employer or
employer’s agent to access a personal social media account of the employee or job
applicant;
(b) access personal social media in the presence of the employer or employer’s agent; or
(c) divulge any personal social media or information contained on personal social
media.
Exceptions are provided where the employer has “specific information” that indicates
work‐related misconduct, criminal defamation, or disclosure of protected or proprietary
information. Another exception is provided when “an investigation is under way and the
information requested of the employee is necessary to make a factual determination in the
investigation.” Employers are subject to criminal and civil penalties for violating the law.
Mont. Code Ann. § 39‐2‐307.
Montana is one of many states regulating employer access to employees’ social media
or electronic communications. This year, the American Legislative Exchange Council
published a draft Employee Online Privacy Protection Act. The Act prohibits employers from
requiring, requesting, or coercing employees to (1) disclose their social media passwords; (2)
alter their privacy settings to allow the employer to view their account; and (3) login to their
account in front of the employer such that the employer can observe its content. The Act
includes some exceptions, including where it is necessary to investigate an employee’s
violation of law. At least 18 states have already enacted similar laws to protect employees’
private information on social media accounts.
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 4
B. Stored Communications Act – 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.
Federal law also regulates the unauthorized access or interception of electronic
communications. Employers should be aware the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
affords privacy protections to electronic communications through Title I, the Wiretap Act (18
U.S.C. § 2510, et seq) and Title II, the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq).
Before accessing employee or applicant social media accounts, e‐mails, voicemails or any other
electronic communication, it is a good idea to consider whether that access would violate the
law. As a general rule, employers should avoid making unauthorized access to employee
social media sites or using surreptitious means to monitor employees’ electronic
communications.4
Consider the following cases examples:
Chavan v. Cohen, No. C13‐01823 RSM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87351 (W.D. Wash.
July 6, 2015) – Court enters default judgment against defendant who allegedly
accessed plaintiffs’ e‐mail and social media accounts without authorization and
established a Facebook account in plaintiffs’ names, intercepting messages
intended for plaintiffs. Based on the allegations of the complaint and
defendant’s failure to respond, the court entered judgment against defendant for
a total of $260,766.08.
Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Grp., Ltd., No. 10 C 7811, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26557 at *28‐29 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2014) – Plaintiff Maremont sues her former
employer when her co‐workers used information tied to the company social
media accounts to access her personal Facebook and Twitter accounts while she
was away on medical leave. Defendants argued Maremont was not damaged
even if her accounts were accessed, but the court denied defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and held a jury could decide if she is entitled to
compensatory and punitive damages
Lazette v. Kulmatycki, 949 F. Supp. 2d 748 (N.D. Ohio 2013) – Former Verizon
employee sues her former supervisor and Verizon for violation of SCA, invasion
of privacy and emotional distress because her former supervisor used her
4 Courts have held that non‐public Facebook and Twitter posts are covered electronic communications for
purposes of the Stored Communications Act. See Ehling v. Monmouth‐Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp., 961 F. Supp. 2d 659,
668 (D.N.J. 2013); United States v. Martin, No. CR‐14‐00678‐PHX‐DGC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94754 at *9 (D. Ariz.
July 21, 2015)
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 5
company‐provided Blackberry to access her personal e‐mails after the Blackberry
was returned. The court refused to dismiss the claims on defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 2002) – Pilot sues airline for gaining access to his restricted website by asking the pilot’s co‐worker
to login and allow it to monitor the pilot’s comments. The court held
supervisor’s unauthorized access to the web site violated the Stored
Communications Act. (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq).
U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz, 622 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2010) – Employee concerned about
getting fired set up a rule in his supervisor’s Outlook that directed the program
to forward all messages to him and was prosecuted under the Wiretap Act.
Court held both the e‐mail server and the computer were devices, and the rule he
created in his supervisor’s Outlook essentially put a “tap” that intercepted
communications between the senders of e‐mails and the recipients.
Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y.
2008) and 759 F. Supp. 2d 417, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) – Employer accessed former
employees’ private e‐mail accounts through usernames and passwords left on
workplace computers. Employer sought to use the e‐mails in trademark
infringement and breach of duty of loyalty cases against former employees.
Former employees counterclaimed under Stored Communications Act. The e‐
mails were excluded and the employer held liable for damages under SCA.
Disciplining Employees for Social Media Posts Even if an employer legally gains access to an employee’s social media posts, careful
consideration should be given to the question of whether the employer’s policies impose
unlawful restrictions on employee rights to unionize and whether the employee may
otherwise be protected from discipline or discharge for statements made on social media.
A. Employee Protection for “Concerted Activity” on Social Media.
Employers attempting to regulate employee social media activity through the use of
personnel policies may run afoul of state and federal labor laws that protect employees from
discipline for social media activity considered “concerted activity.” The National Labor
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 6
Relations Board (“NLRB”) has a stake in regulating employers’ policies and practices with
respect to employees’ social media activity through the National Labor Relations Act
(“NLRA”). Similarly, the Montana Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act,5 which
mirrors the NLRA in many respects, governs Montana public employers’ social media
policies.6 The legal restrictions apply to both union and non‐union employers.
The NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self‐organize, form, join or assist labor
organizations, bargain collectively, or engage in other “concerted activities” for the purpose of
collecting bargaining or “other mutual aid or protection.“7 While “concerted activity” is not
defined in the Act, the NLRB and courts distinguish between an employee speaking out with
or on behalf of fellow employees and one speaking out solely on behalf of himself.8
Protection typically extends to disrespectful or impulsive remarks and behavior
considered “concerted,” but egregious comments may lose protection, depending upon
consideration of the following factors:
(1) the place of the discussion (e.g., were the egregious comments heard by others and
will they affect workplace discipline);
(2) the subject matter of the discussion (e.g., were the comments made while exercising
the right to unionize);
(3) the nature of the employee’s outburst (e.g., was it profane, insubordinate and likely
to have an adverse effect on workplace discipline); and
(4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by the employer’s unfair labor
practices (e.g., were the comments reactionary to some term or condition of
employment or the employer’s unfair labor practices).9
5 Mont. Code. Ann. § 39‐31‐101, et. seq. 6 Teamsters Local #45 v. State ex rel. Bd. of Personnel Appeals (Mont. 1981), 635 P.2d 1310, 1312; State ex rel. Bd. of
Personnel Appeals v. District Court (1979), 183 Mont. 223, 225, 598 P.2d 1117, 1118; 2010 Mont. AG LEXIS 5, 53 Op.
Atty Gen. Mont. No. 4, 53 Op. Atty Gen. Mont. No. 4. 7 National Labor Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 151‐169. 8 Meyers II, 281 N.L.R.B. 882, 886 (1986). 9 Cellco Pʹship, 349 N.L.R.B. 640, 642 (2007).
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 7
When the NLRB addresses the question of whether an employer engaged in an unfair
labor practice for disciplining or terminating an employee for his social media conduct, it
evaluates whether protected “concerted activity” was a substantial or motivating factor in the
adverse action, and if so, whether the employer would have taken the same action even in the
absence of protected activity.10
For example, when an auto dealership employee was terminated for posting sarcastic
comments about his employer on his Facebook page, the employee challenged the termination
and raised the issue with the NLRB. The employee’s initial posts mocked the quality of the
dealership’s BMW sales event and included pictures of sales people at the event holding hot
dogs, chips and water, with comments including:
“I was happy to see that Knauz went ʺAll Outʺ for the most important launch of a new
BMW in years . . . the new 5 series. A car that will generate tens in millions of dollars in
revenues for Knauz over the next few years. The small 8 oz bags of chips, and the $ 2.00
cookie plate from Samʹs Club, and the semi fresh apples and oranges were such a nice
touch . . . but to top it all off . . . the Hot Dog Cart. Where our clients could attain a
over cooked wiener and a stale bunn.”11
The employee also posted a picture which depicted an accident that had occurred at the
dealership’s adjacent lot, with the following comments:
“This is your car: This is your car on drugs;” and
“This is what happens when a sales Person sitting in the front passenger seat (Former
Sales Person, actually) allows a 13 year old boy to get behind the wheel of a 6000 lb. truck
built and designed to pretty much drive over anything. The kid drives over his fatherʹs
foot and into the pond in all about 4 seconds and destroys a $ 50,000 truck. OOOPS!”12
The NLRB considered the first comments regarding the food at the sales event protected
“concerted activity,” despite their disparaging nature, because the sales people were paid on
commission, and the comments could be construed as compensation complaints. However,
the NLRB determined the dealership did not engage in an unfair labor practice in terminating
10 NLRB v. Wright Line, 662 F.2d 899 (1st cir. 1981); Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B 1083, 1089 (1980). 11 Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., 2012 NLRB 679, LEXIS 679, *29‐31 (N.L.R.B. Sept. 28, 2012). 12 Id., 42‐46.
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 8
the employee because his post regarding the car accident was not protected and would have
resulted in his termination, regardless of the earlier concerted activity.13
Still, the BMW dealership did not escape the NLRB action unscathed because in
analyzing the dealership’s social media personnel policy, the NLRB determined the policy
itself violated the NLRA by unreasonably restricting employees from engaging in concerted
activity. The objectionable policy was:
“Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous,
polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow
employees. No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which
injures the image or reputation of the dealership. “14
In a similar case, the NLRB determined the following Costco social media policy
violated the Act because it could be construed by the employees to prohibit communications
critical of Costco’s treatment of its employees:
“Employees should be aware that statements posted electronically (such as online
message boards or discussion groups) that damage the Company, defame any individual
or damage any person’s reputation, or violate the policies outlined in the Costco
Employee Agreement, may be subject to discipline, up to and including termination of
employment.”15
These cases demonstrate that navigating the line between what is and is not acceptable
in terms of regulating employee social media conduct and disciplining employees for
comments made is difficult. The NLRB has issued three general counsel memos in recent
years, attempting to clarify its position on employer restrictions on their employees’ right to
discuss work issues through social media.
13 Id. 14 Id., 48‐55. 15 Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 34, 2012 NLRB 534 (2012).
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 9
The NLRB suggests employers consider the following elements when drafting a social
media policy:
1. A clear, articulated need for the employer to place restrictions on an employee’s
social media use;
2. Detailed notification to employees that even though there is a social media policy in
place, the employee is free to express his or her views on social media but must
accept whatever consequences arise from posting such information;
3. A concrete definition of social media, which includes specific examples of the types
of information that an employee is not permitted to disclose for business or legal
purposes (e.g., confidential information or trade secrets);
4. Definition and specific examples of communication that will be prohibited as
offensive or against the company’s policy of anti‐discrimination, harassment or
bullying; and
5. A clearly worded statement that the policy will not be applied in a way that restricts
an employee’s use of social media to engage in protected activities.16
B. Employee Free Speech Protections for Social Media Activity.
For public employers, discipline based on the content of the employee’s comments
should take into account the employee’s free speech rights under the First Amendment. In
2006, the U.S. Supreme Court re‐affirmed precedent restricting public employee free speech
rights.17 Still, public employees enjoy First Amendment protection for statements made
regarding a matter of public concern and may have legal claims for restriction of those rights.
For example, a police officer in Greenville, Mississippi, recently brought a civil rights
claim against her employer alleging she was terminated for engaging in protected speech
when she posted comments critical of her police chief to her own Facebook page and copied it
to the Greenville mayor’s public Facebook page. The employee complained the police chief
did not send a representative to the funeral of an officer from a nearby town who was killed in
the line of duty. She concluded her post with:
16 Operations Memorandum: Report of the Acting General Counsel Concerning Social Media Cases (OM 12‐59),
NLRB (May 30, 2012); (OM 12‐31) NLRB (Jan. 24, 2012); (OM11‐74) NLRB (Aug. 18, 2011). 17 Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (reiterating its holdings in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563
(1968) and Mount Health City School District Board of Education v. Dole, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 10
“Dear Mayor, can we please get a leader that understands that a department sends
officers of [sic] the funeral of an officer killed in the line of duty? Thank you. Susan
Graziosi”
When other people commented on her post, she posted:
“[W]e had something then that we no longer have. . .LEADERS. I donʹt know that
trying for 28 is worth it. In fact, I am amazed everytime [sic] I walk into the door. The
thing is the chief was discussing sending officers on Wednesday (after he suspended me
but before the meeting was over). If he suddenly decided we ʺcouldnʹt afford the gasʺ
(how absurd ‐ I would be embarrassed as a chief to make that statement) he should have
let us know so we could have gone ourselves. Also, youʹll be happy to know that I will no
longer use restraint when voicing my opinion on things. Ha!”
The City of Greenville determined the officer’s comments violated employee policies
regarding supporting fellow officers and insubordination and terminated her employment.
The Fifth Circuit analyzed her claim and determined she made the statement as a citizen, but
that it was not on a matter of “public concern” because it addressed her own grievances and
not larger scale problems or corruption.18
The Fourth Circuit reached a different conclusion when it evaluated whether a
Facebook “like” is protected speech under the First Amendment. In Bland v. Roberts, several
law enforcement officers brought civil rights claims alleging the Sherriff’s Office retaliated
against them when the sheriff refused to reappoint them because they showed support for his
opponent during the campaign.19 The Court determined ʺlikingʺ on Facebook is an expression
of support analogous to the “universally understood ‘thumbs up.’” The Court held the “likes”
were statements made as private citizens on matters of public concern – the election for sheriff
– and the jury must decide whether the sheriff refused to reappoint the officers in retaliation
for those statements.20
18 Graziosi v. City of Greenville Miss., 775 F.3d 731, 736 (5th Cir. 2015). 19 Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 385‐86 (4th Cir. 2013). 20 Id., see also, Three D, LLC (Triple Play), 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014) (“Like” button can be protected activity under
NLRA as expression of support for others who share work‐related concerns).
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 11
C. Other Considerations.
Even if an employer maintains a lawful social media policy and imposes discipline in
conformance with the NLRA and First Amendment, discipline and termination should still be
handled in conformance the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, any
applicable collective bargaining agreement, and other labor and discrimination laws. Factors
for consideration when disciplining or terminating a Montana employee for his social media
activity include:
Whether the employer is a public or private entity;
Whether the comment or social media activity violated any employer policies,
including policies not specifically directed at social media activity (e.g., did it violate
the anti‐discrimination or confidentiality policies);
Whether the employee is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and, if so,
whether the activity constitutes “just cause” for termination;
If the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act applies, whether the
activity constitutes “good cause” for termination under the statute, whether the
termination is made in accordance with the employer’s own personnel policies, and
whether the termination is being made for the employee’s refusal to violate public
policy21;
Whether the content of the post was work‐related, personal, political, or directed at
other employees;
Whether the content of the post had an adverse impact on the workplace (i.e. did it
harm the employer’s reputation, disclose confidential information, or pose a safety
risk); and
Whether the employee used a personal or business device.
Conclusion Employers have a fine line to navigate between regulating their employees’ social
media activity for protection of their business, and respecting their employees’ rights under
the law. Employers should consider whether a social media policy is warranted and, if so,
take care to recognize employee protections when drafting one. Likewise, when disciplining
employees for social media activity, employers should evaluate whether the discipline
comports with its own policies and the applicable labor laws. That will require some
21 Mont. Code Ann. 39‐2‐901, et. seq.
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE WORKPLACE: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS
Social Media & Employee Discipline 12
diligence, as those laws will undoubtedly change and evolve as social media usage and
technology changes and evolves. In this area of the law, Heraclitus’s statement, “change is the
only constant,” is spot‐on. When in doubt, consult with an attorney or human resources
specialist.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Kimberly S. Moore & Kathleen Peahl, Employer or Big Brother: Regulating Employees’ Off‐
Duty Conduct – What Happens In Vegas Doesn’t Stay in Vegas, 2015 ALFA International
Labor & Employment Practice Group Seminar
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Memos dated August 18, 2011, January 25,
2012, and May 30, 2012, available at: https://www.nlrb.gov/news‐outreach/fact‐sheets/nlrb‐
and‐social‐media
Jill Gerdrum
Axilon Law Group, PLLC
125 Bank Street, Suite 403
Millennium Building
Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 532‐2635
Angela Simonson, MPA, PHR, SHRM‐CP
Human Resources/Employment Practices Specialist
Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority
3115 McHugh Dr.
Helena, MT 59602
406‐495‐7017
3/25/2016
1
Social Media &Employee Discipline
J I L L G E R D R U M , E S Q . ,A X I L O N L A W G R O U P
A N G E L A S I M O N S O N , M P A , P H RH R / E P S P E C I A L I S T M M I A
What is Social Media?
3/25/2016
2
Employees & Social Media
Employees & Social MediaLegal Considerations
A daycare receives reports its new employee A daycare receives reports its new employee posted:
“I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at day care. I just really hate b i d l t f kid ”being around a lot of kids.”
3/25/2016
3
Enacted by MT Legislature in 2015
Accessing Employee AccountsMCA § 39-2-307
Restricts employer access to employee social media accounts;
Protects employees from retaliation from refusing to provide social media information;
Civil and criminal consequences for violations.
Monitoring Employees’ Social MediaStored Communications Privacy Act -18 U.S.C. § 2701
Prohibits unauthorized access to electronically stored communications
Applies to e-mails, text messages, social media posts, private blogs,
d d b i password protected web sites, etc.…
3/25/2016
4
Federal & Montana Regulation of Employer Policies
National Labor Relations Act—Private employers
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—Private
Collective Bargaining Act for Public Employees
Montana Board of Personnel Appeals (BOPA)
Unlawful Social Media Policies
Prohibiting employees from posting photos of themselves in any media depicting the company in any way—including y p g p y y y glogo or corporate uniform
Prohibiting employees from making disparaging comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors, coworkers or competitors
Instructing employees to report inappropriate internal SM activity.
3/25/2016
5
Employees & Social MediaLegal Considerations
First Amendment Considerations
Was employee acting as a citizen or on behalf of the government?
Was it a public employee statement p p y“regarding a matter of public concern?”
3/25/2016
6
First Amendment Considerations
“Dear Mayor, can we please get a leader that y , p gunderstands that a department sends officers of [sic] the funeral of an officer killed in the line of duty? Thank you. Susan Graziosi”
First Amendment Considerations
Law enforcement officer’s “like” on a sheriff
did ’ F b k candidate’s Facebook page is protected free speech.
Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 385-86 (4th Cir. 2013)3)
3/25/2016
7
Employee Discipline Considerations
Do you have a social media policy?Is the employer a public or private entity?Is the employer a public or private entity?What was the content of the post?Did the post have an adverse impact on the workplace?Did the social media activity violate any employer policies?policies?Does the activity constitute “good cause” under the WDEA or CBA?Did the employee use a personal or business device?
Violation of Social Media Policy
Train Staff/ManagementBe ConsistentEnsure Protected RightsFollow Discipline PolicyRegularly Review Policy
3/25/2016
8
Conclusion
Consider whether you want information you gain y y gthrough social media.Do not access employee or applicant social media accounts without authorization.Do not coerce authorization.Proceed with caution in drafting a policy.Consider free speech, employees’ rights to engage in Consider free speech, employees rights to engage in concerted activities, and the law, contract or policies governing the employment relationship before disciplining.
Social Media & Employee Discipline
QUESTIONS?
Jill Gerdrum406-532-2635
Angela Simonson406-495-7017
QUESTIONS?
3/25/2016
9
Resources
Ahmad, Irfan. Social Media Today. “The Generational Content Gap: How Different Generations Consume Content Online.” 11 May 2015<http://www.socialmediatoday.com>
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Memos dated August 18, 2011, January 25, 2012 and May 30, 2012, available at: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-h/f h / l b d i l dioutreach/fact-sheets/nlrb-and-social-media
Nestor, Alexander. National Law Review. “Newly Released NLRB Advice Memorandum Finds Several Provisions of Employer’s Social Media Policy Unlawful.” 5 December 2014. http://www.natlawreview.com/article/newly-released-nlrb-advice-memorandum-finds-several-provisions-employer-s-social-med
Smith, Allen. SHRM. “NLRB Rejects Common Practices; What is HR to Do?” 28 June 2015. http://www.shrm.org/publications/conference-today/articles/pages/nlrb-rejects-common-practices.aspx
Peter Holley, Day-Care Employee Fired for Facebook Post Saying She Hates ‘Being Around a Lot of Kids.’ Washington Post (May 4, 2015)
Sumien v. Careflite, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5331(Tex. App. Fort Worth July 5, 2012); Roberts v. CareFlite, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8371 (Tex. App. Fort Worth Oct. 4, 2012)
http://28-2015.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/05/ms-subway-employee-fired-following-celebratory-cop-killing-tweets-3152748.html
Graziosi v. City of Greenville Miss., 775 F.3d 731, 736 (5th Cir. 2015)
Mont. Code. Ann. § 39-31-101, et. seq.
Teamsters Local #45 v. State ex rel. Bd. of Personnel Appeals (Mont. 1981), 635 P.2d 1310, 1312
National Labor Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 151-169
Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 34, 2012 NLRB 534 (2012)
Knauz BMW, Inc., No. 13, 2012 NLRB 679 (2012)
Kimberly S. Moore & Kathleen Peahl, Employer or Big Brother: Regulating Employees’ Off-Duty Conduct – What Happens In Vegas Doesn’t Stay in Vegas, 2015 ALFA International Labor & Employment Practice Group Seminar