Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Last week, New York’s Governor signed a bill into law that effectively prohibits employers from accessing employees’ or job applicants’ personal social media accounts. The law goes into effect on March 12, 2024.

Given the pervasiveness of social media in society, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) has been forced to frequently weigh in on the intersection between employee and employer’s social media activity and labor law. The Board has released a great catalog of cases over the past decade touching on issues related to the workplace and social media—these issues range from what social media policies and employer may enact to what discipline an employer may impose for an employee’s social media conduct.

State legislation concerning employee privacy in social media continues to grow with six states passing such legislation in 2014, including Tennessee, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. As discussed here, these laws focus on an employee’s right not to disclose personal social media passwords to an employer, as well as prevent employers from requiring access to content not available to the general public.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”), employers usually may not discipline employees for engaging in certain collective or concerted activity, including comments regarding terms and conditions of employment, unless the employee’s behavior is so outrageous that it loses the protection of the Act.  But how far can employees push the boundary before their conduct will be found indefensible?

In Mark v. Gawker Media LLC (“Gawker”), S.D.N.Y. Case No. 13-cv-4347, the Court permitted Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a plan to distribute class notice through social media.  Plaintiff put forward a plan to use five websites to not only distribute notice, but also to potentially locate additional collective action members.  The Southern District of New York rejected this proposal, even after the parties had agreed to certain aspects of it, finding “[t]he proposals [were] substantially overbroad for the purposes of providing notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, and [that] much of Plaintiff’s plan appear[ed] calculated to punish Defendants rather than provide notice of opt-in rights.”

We have been reporting in this space for the better part of a year about the uptick in NLRB enforcement activity in non-union workplaces.  One of the Board’s most noteworthy – and controversial – areas of focus has been on the question whether employer confidentiality rules unlawfully chill protected concerted employee activity under the National Labor Relations Act.  Last week, for the first time, a U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the Board that certain confidentiality restrictions can have such an effect.

As 2013 winds to a close, we take this opportunity to alert you to two significant cases from earlier this year pertaining to the spoliation of social media evidence.  In both of these cases, the plaintiffs – either intentionally or accidentally – destroyed evidence on their social media sites resulting in severe sanctions.  The central takeaway from these cases is that social media evidence – from a preservation standpoint – is identical to physical evidence and, thus, should not be altered, modified, or deleted during the pendency of litigation.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently ruled that non-public Facebook wall posts are protected under the Federal Stored Communications Act (the “SCA”) in Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., No. 2:11-CV-3305 (WMJ) (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2013).  The plaintiff was a registered nurse and paramedic at Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (“MONOC”).  She maintained a personal Facebook profile and was “Facebook friends” with many of her coworkers but none of the MONOC managers.  She adjusted her privacy preferences so only her “Facebook friends” could view the messages she posted onto her Facebook wall.  Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, a coworker who was also a “Facebook friend” took screenshots of the plaintiff’s wall posts and sent them to a MONOC manager.  When the manager learned of a wall post in which the plaintiff criticized Washington, D.C. paramedics in their response to a museum shooting, MONOC temporarily suspended the plaintiff with pay and delivered a memo warning her that the wall post reflected a “deliberate disregard for patient safety.”  The plaintiff subsequently filed suit alleging violations of the SCA, among other claims.

In an Advice Memorandum released last month, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Associate General Counsel’s office found that portions of a social media policy violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees’ rights to “self-organiz[e], to form, join, or assist labor organizations, . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .” 

The growth of social media as a low-cost, widely-accessible form of communication has made it an ideal tool for businesses large and small to market themselves and reach out en mass to consumers in a manner more direct, personal, and in many ways effective than traditional media.  With Americans spending more time on-line than ever before, the value of such social media accounts can be considerable.  So when an employee who has used social media to develop his employer’s business and goodwill resigns, who owns the account, the contacts, and valuable consumer data that come with it?

Employees use social media extensively in communication for personal and business reasons.   Employers are increasingly monitoring this use, and insisting on access to some of the more popular sites.   California took  notice of this trend and passed legislation to protect employee privacy.  On September 27, 2012, Governor Brown signed AB 1844 making California the third state to limit access to employees’ social media account, joining Maryland and Illinois.

On September 20, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Anderson struck down telecommunications company EchoStar Corp.’s policy prohibiting employees from making disparaging comments about it on social media sites. The NLRB judge found that the prohibition, as well as a ban on employees using social media sites with company resources or on company time, chilled employees’ exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The EchoStar decision comes on the heels of the NLRB’s recent ruling striking down Costco Wholesale Corp.’s policy barring employees from posting statements online that were harmful to the company’s reputation.

On September 7, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board invalidated Costco Wholesale Corp.’s policy of prohibiting employee electronic posts in its first decision involving an employer’s social media policy.  In Costco Wholesale Corporation and UFCW Local 371, Case No. 3A-CA-012421, the Board held, among other things, that Costco’s rule prohibiting employees from posting statements electronically that “damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation” was overly broad.  The Board reasoned that the policy language contained no restrictions on its application and, thus, clearly encompassed protected concerted communications, such as speech that is critical of Costco or its agents.  Accordingly, the rule had a tendency to chill employees’ protected activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7.

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and unions have placed a growing emphasis on extending the application of labor law into the social media arena.  As part of this initiative, the NLRB has adopted a strong stance against social media policies that it believes pose a threat to employees’ right to engage in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Last week, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, released a second report containing guidance relating to employees’ use of social media.  This report comes less than six months after the release of the NLRB’s first report on the subject in August 2011.  Like the August report, the new release summarizes a number of recent cases decided by the NLRB in which an employee was terminated, at least in part, because of his or her comments on social media websites.

The focus on social media by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) continues as evidenced by its recent report issued by Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon.  The report discusses fourteen social media cases that were decided by the Board after Regional Directors submitted requests for advice to the Board’s Division of Advice.  The cases highlighted by Solomon give some insight to how the NLRB will handle various social media issues in the future.

In October 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) raised the eyebrows of employers and observers when its Hartford, Connecticut Regional Office issued an unfair labor practice complaint against an employer after it allegedly terminated an employee for posting unflattering statements about her supervisor on Facebook.  The NLRB and the company settled the complaint in February 2011, on condition that the company revise its rules so they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with coworkers and others while not at work.  The employer also agreed that it would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) regional offices addressing complaints involving employers’ social media policies must seek advice from the NLRB’s Division of Advice before taking any action. The memorandum, issued by the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel on April 12th, added social media disputes to the list of matters that must be submitted to the Division of Advice.  The Division of Advice is responsible for issuing opinions on difficult or novel labor issues. 

Most of us have sent a text while driving, and we all know that this practice can be dangerous. This is as true on the rural roads of America, as it is on the busiest of freeways. It is no surprise, with all of our technological distractions, that motor vehicle crashes are consistently the leading cause of worker fatalities. It is also no surprise that OSHA has taken notice of this issue and is taking action. OSHA is prepared to start issuing citations and fines to employers for distracted driving by employees.

An employer who allegedly posted to an employee’s Facebook and Twitter accounts without her consent may face liability for its actions, according to a federal judge in Illinois. The case is Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group, Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26441, March 15, 2011).

Employees are increasingly talking about supervisors and other employees on social networking sites, and sometimes the talk can get nasty.  Complaining about co-workers and supervisors is not new.  However, distributing those complaints via the internet is.  Employers often seek to crack down on such negative talk via policies and disciplinary action.  However, Lafe Solomon, the NLRB’s acting general counsel, has publicly stated that employees have the right to communicate jointly about working conditions, regardless of whether those communications are made on social networking sites or at the company water cooler.  The NLRB will decide the validity of Mr. Solomon’s statement in connection with a recently-issued complaint.

A recent New York state trial court decision, Romano v. Steelcase Inc., et al., is representative of a recent trend of parties seeking, and courts permitting, discovery of information on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.  Rejecting the plaintiff’s privacy concerns, the Romano court held that such information is discoverable because the plaintiff’s damages are at issue.  The court ordered the release of the plaintiff’s postings, pictures, and other information on the social networking sites.

On August 25, 2010, the German government approved a draft law concerning special rules for employee data protection, originally proposed by the Federal Ministry of the Interior.  A background paper on the draft law was published on August 25, 2010.

Continue…

How would you handle the following situation?  You have recently learned that one of your employees “posted” on Facebook complaining about the company, specifically commenting on work conditions and wages.  Several other employees have made comments on this employee’s Facebook page and a discussion has ensued.  These comments and complaints are damaging to the company’s reputation and portray the company in a negative light. 

Your natural inclination may be to instruct the employee to take these comments down and prohibit him from continuing to use Facebook to discuss work issues.  Yet, unions may be looking for you to do exactly that so they can try to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  Employers have the right to protect their reputations and to prevent the possible disclosure of confidential information.  But unions may try to construe the above situation and the employer’s reaction to it as interference with an employee’s right to engage in concerted activity, a violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Notably, such an argument by unions could apply to both unionized and non-unionized employers. 

Recently a woman found out just how serious social media can be when she lost her benefits as a result of photos she had uploaded to her Facebook page.  She posted photos on her Facebook page that showed her having fun on vacation and also enjoying a “Chippendales” show.  The problem was that she was on extended sick leave from her job at the time, purportedly because she was suffering from depression.  Her employer’s insurance company saw the photos and discontinued her benefit payments, concluding that she was not unable to work due to depression.  She argued her doctor recommended that she try to have fun to help her forget about her problems.