It takes two to make a thing go right.
It takes two to make it out of sight, palatable enough for bipartisan support.
It took some doing, but the State of New Jersey finally has itself a workplace social media privacy law, becoming the 12th state to restrict company access to prospective and current employee social media.
There are 11 states with social media workplace privacy laws making it illegal for an employer to require that an employee or applicant fork over a social media login and password.
But, if a company in the other 39 states assumes that it has the green light to engage in these shenanigans, then chiggity check yo self before you wreck yo self, according to this recent NJ federal court decision.
The legal risks of accessing an employee’s Facebook account
More litigants are requesting that their adversaries produce social media evidence during litigation. Often this information is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial.
For example, a Facebook status update about a great day from a plaintiff suing her former employer for discrimination could bear on her claim for emotional distress. Therefore, she would have to produce this status update as part of discovery if requested to do so, because, not only is the information relevant, it is within the plaintiff’s “possession, custody, or control.”
Same holds trues for a plaintiff in a personal injury action claiming that she suffered a debilitating back injury. She may have to produce recent Facebook photos of her riding on a speedboat.
After the George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict was announced, two professional football players, NY Giants wide receiver Victor Cruz, and Atlanta Falcons wide receiver Roddy White, vented on Twitter:
Meanwhile, Pittsburgh Steelers offensive lineman, Maurkice Pouncey found himself in hot water after he was photographed last weekend, along with his brother Mike Pouncey, an offensive lineman forthe Miami Dolphins, wearing “Free Hernandez” caps. The “Hernandez” at issue being former New Engalnd Patriots tight end, Aaron Hernandez, who is current being held for trial on charges of first-degree murder
Recognizing that what they say and do online can win or lose tons of fans and $$$, plus impact their respective teams’ image, all three players quickly owned up to their online mistakes (Cruz, White, Pouncey)
I got an email the other day from my SHRM buddy Tara Mauk Arthur. She lives in Arkansas, which is one of 12 states to have a social media workplace privacy law.
As my readers know, subject to limited exception, laws like the one in Arkansas make it illegal for an employer to require or request that a current or prospective employee disclose his/her username or password for a social media account. Some, like the one in Arkansas, also make it unlawful to add a co-worker as a social media contact.
Now, as you know, my posts on these new laws have a common theme; namely, that these laws present a solution in search of a problem. And the problem with slapping together and passing legislation like this is you get some unintended consequences. Cue Tara’s email:
As many of you know, I am a HUGE Boston Bruins fan. But, right now, I have little love for former Bruins winger Tyler Seguin.
You see, Seguin was a highly touted 2011 draft pick who did a disappearing act in the playoffs this year. Amidst reports that his off-ice behavior was interfering with his on-ice performance, the Bruins traded the 21-year-old Seguin to the Dallas Stars on July 4.
The media scrutiny caused Seguin’s mom to come to his defense. (I’m sure that won’t ignite the crowds at all during road games). But just as that story began to lose steam, Seguin’s Twitter account published this tweet:
According to this recent survey from CareerBuilder.com, the number of hiring managers who are reporting that a job candidate’s social media indiscretions have cost them a position is up nearly 10%, while the overall use social media to vet candidates continues to grow.
Those surveyed, reported finding a variety of concerning content. Top mentions ranged from evidence of inappropriate behavior to information that contradicted their listed qualifications:
- 50% – Candidate posted provocative/inappropriate photos/info
You see, in certain instances, a trial witness’s social media breadcrumbs may undermine her credibility and score points for your client. But when the witness — and the lawyer trying to impeach the witness with her social networking activities — display as much combined tech savvy as J-Lo’s PR machine, hilarity trouble may ensue:
(h/t @PhilipMiles)
Who would’ve guessed that, in June 2013, we’d have 11 states with social media privacy laws. I mean what are the odds? That’d be like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian deciding to name their baby daughter ‘North West’.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to check why my Twitter is blowing up.
Oh, good God!
Savvy lawyers today use social media to mine and collect important data about litigants. But cross that line from savvy to shady, and you may find yourself in deep do-do.
(Kinda like the blow-out I encountered when I reached inside the back of my youngest’s wetsuit at the pool this weekend to check his diaper. But different. And TMI. Anyway…)
James McCarty of the The Plain Dealer reported here last week that an Ohio prosecutor was fired for pretending to be a woman in a Facebook chat with an accused killer’s alibi witnesses in an attempt to persuade them to change their testimony.
The Employer Handbook Blog