One of the more difficult things for employers, human resources professionals, and lawyers to do in the employment law field is keep up with all the acronyms.   One of the latest is “GINA”, or the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, that first took effect in November 2009.   However, last week, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued final regulations interpreting GINA, which will become effective in January 2011. The new regulations will have far-reaching implications for social media activities.

At its heart, the EEOC recognized that “GINA is intended to prevent discrimination based on concerns that genetic information about an individual suggests an increased risk of, or predisposition to, acquiring a condition in the future.” Title II of GINA, thus, makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to harass, or discriminate or retaliate against, an applicant or employee because of his or her genetic information.   The new regulations contain a plethora of defined terms, including “genetic information”, which is defined to include (among other things) genetic tests of the individual or his or her family member, the individual’s family medical history, and genetic information of a fetus carried by the individual or a family member of the individual.

Critically, the new GINA regulations do not solely address what you can or cannot do once covered information is obtained; rather, the regulations also speak to how you may or may not “acquire” such information, thus effectively instilling a social media element to the dialogue.   For example, Section 1635.8 of the new regulations (“Acquisition of Genetic Information”) expressly provides that an employer:

“may not request, require, or purchase genetic information of an individual or family member of the individual[.]    ‘Request’ includes conducting an Internet search on an individual in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information; . . . and making requests for information about an individual’s current health status in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.”

There are certain exceptions to the prohibition on acquiring genetic information, including “inadvertent acquisition” under certain circumstances.   However, the exceptions are stated narrowly, and obviously there has not yet been a full development of the rules and exceptions contained in the new GINA regulations, which will undoubtedly come through further agency action and lawsuits.  

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?    As is the case in the new GINA regulations, we expect that technology and social media will continue to be expressly accounted for in new employment legislation enacted on a going forward basis. It is important for you to develop a good grasp of the rules and prohibitions contained in the new GINA regulations as the New Year’s effective date quickly approaches.

Would you be violating GINA’s acquisition ban merely by “friending” an applicant or employee on Facebook and being exposed to that individual’s entire profile, which may include postings about covered “genetic information”?   Have you violated GINA by doing a Google search to find the typical background information about an applicant or employee, or by reading a personal blog of that individual that you discover through your search, and that reveals certain “genetic information”?   What about expressing sympathy or inquiring during a social networking chat with an employee about a revealed illness that the employee states is “not surprising because both of my grandparents had it”?   The regulations arguably limit the reach of the prohibition by only banning searches that are themselves “likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.”   Yet, the regulations also refer to Internet searches as only one example of a prohibited “Request”, again leaving the development of the full scope and nature of GINA’s provisions for another day.

You have, hopefully, become sensitive by now to some of the caveats inherent with the use of social media information for employment-related decisions.   Now, you should also understand the potential dangers in simply acquiring certain information about an employee or his or her family member, and make sure that your policies and practices relating to any processes for learning about an applicant or employee are fully compliant with GINA’s new regulations.

And the cases continue to roll in….

Last week, we blogged about a recent NLRB complaint filed against an employer who fired an employee for criticizing her boss on Facebook.    Since then, on November 8^th, an Arbitrator in Washington, D.C. issued a decision reinstating an employee who had been fired for remarks made on Twitter.   On the surface, one might conclude that this is just an example of different forum, different outcome.   However, upon closer inspection, you begin to see some semblance of a common thread.

According to this Arbitrator’s decision, Radio Free America (“RFA”) is a non-profit company that broadcasted news to certain Asian countries “where people do not have a free press.”   The claimant in this proceeding, King Man Ho, was a broadcaster at RFA, who, as part of his duties, covered a speech given by Secretary of State Clinton about Internet freedom. Ho wrote a piece regarding the speech and some of the discussions that took place afterward with Secretary Clinton, after which certain subjects of his piece apparently complained about the contents of the article and Ho’s journalistic ethics.

Ho began using his Twitter account to try to contact the complaining parties, and became increasingly agitated first about his inability to reach those parties, and then about the accusations themselves.    The decision goes through a lengthy discussion about the sequence of events that followed, including Ho’s communications with his boss over the frequency and nature of his continued tweets.   RFA ultimately terminated Ho’s employment due to what it deemed to be “just cause” insubordination for disregarding a directive to stop posting unprofessional and inappropriate tweets, and later to stop tweeting altogether about the complaints lodged against his article.

While the Arbitrator did find that RFA “shall” issue a written warning to Ho “directing him not to engage in public debates with news sources,” the Arbitrator ruled that there was no just cause for the termination and ordered that Ho be reinstated to his job with back pay, benefits and seniority. The decision suggests that it was not at all clear that Ho was insubordinate to his employer or violated any clear directive or policy of the employer, as the Arbitrator noted in the end: “RFA should address a clearer understanding of the role of [the company’s Director Communications and External Relations] and the occasions when he should become involved with criticisms or questions raised by outside news sources and listeners.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?   This decision should not be read simply as an example of one legal arbiter refusing to allow social media activity to prompt an employment termination.   On the contrary, there seems to be an underlying concern in the decision about the extent and nature of several of Ho’s tweets. Rather, the crux of the Arbitrator’s reasoning is what should be taken away.

Prior installments of the “Social Media Advisor” noted that courts have trended toward allowing discovery of social networking sites, albeit with the common thread that some showing must be made before free and unfettered disclosure is allowed.   Prior posts have also noted that, while a trend suggests that adverse employment action may be taken as a result of an employee’s social media use, care must be taken not to otherwise violate express prohibitions in the law (such as protected class discrimination/harassment and NLRA concerted activity protections), and that employers maintain effective corporate policies.   This arbitration decision highlights the latter point.

By ultimately refusing to find just cause for the termination, the Arbitrator here essentially determined that the company did not create and communicate a sufficiently effective directive or policy that was clearly violated by Ho’s conduct.     Therefore, it is critical to understand the need for you to create, publish and enforce clear directives and policies that address your employees’ social media use.   That way, you will not be faced with uncertainty about whether statements or conduct actually violate something in the first place when you wish to make an employment-related decision as a result of those statements or that conduct.

The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) is one of those employment statutes that is rife with misunderstanding in the minds of many employers who believe that the NLRA is only applicable to the unionized workforce.   In fact, while the NLRA does apply largely to the union setting, and does impose various coverage and industry thresholds, it is important to dispel this employer myth by understanding that the NLRA also applies to private, non-union employee settings as well. And, as the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) demonstrated this past week, social media is infiltrating this area as well.

Enacted in 1935, the NLRA affords certain protections to employees, including the right to engage in “concerted activities” for their “mutual aid or protection.”   Employers can be found to have engaged in an “unfair labor practice” if they interfere with the exercise of that right.   To further hit you with legal terms, “concerted activities” consist of activities in which an employee engages with, or on the authority of, other employees, and not merely on that employee’s own behalf.

On October 27, 2010, the Board filed a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc., after the ambulance service fired an employee for criticizing her boss on Facebook.   After an internal dispute at work, the employee apparently posted negative remarks about her boss on her Facebook page, albeit from her home computer.   That comment apparently prompted “supportive responses from her co-workers”, which then resulted in additional negative comments being posted by the employee about her boss and employment conditions.   The Board’s complaint alleged that the employee was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected concerted activities with her co-workers.

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

(1)        One cannot overstate the need to create appropriate social media policies that are not – as the Board suggested in last week’s complaint – overly broad and perhaps unlawful on their face.

(2)        When considering taking adverse action against an employee based on – or after obtaining knowledge about – the employee’s social media statements or conduct, you should at a minimum consider whether that employee was arguably engaging in protected activity under a statute such as the NLRA.   Was the employee engaging in activity that bears a relationship to employees’ interests as employees, as opposed to, say, political or non-employment-related interests?   Do the statements evidence the mere lashing out by, or insubordination of, a single employee based solely on his or her own opinion, or is there evidence of an intent or effect of engaging in “concerted” conduct between or among more than 1 employee, such that the activity could be for their “mutual aid or protection”?

            We have seen, and blogged about, the trend of decisions refusing to protect the privacy and substance of many social media statements and acts when they collide with paramount employer and litigation interests.   However, you as an employer still need to walk that fine line and not react in knee-jerk fashion when faced with less than glowing comments posted about you by an employee.

A “trend” is generally defined as a general course, drift or prevailing tendency.   In the battle between the potential privacy rights of a social networking site user and the desire of a lawsuit party to have full access to the private portions of that user’s profile, the trend favoring full and unfettered access has become clearer with a decision just issued by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in the case of McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc.

In McMillen, the plaintiff was injured during a stock car race, and sued for damages after being rear-ended during a cooling down lap.   He alleged significant physical injuries and overall loss of general health and vitality, as well as an “inability to enjoy certain pleasures of life.” During the lawsuit, the defendants requested that plaintiff identify the name of all sites to which he belonged, and to identify his user name(s), login name(s), and passwords. Plaintiff responded by stating that he belonged to Facebook and MySpace, but he refused to give the other requested information based on confidentiality and privacy grounds.

After reviewing publicly-accessible portions of plaintiff’s sites to discover comments about a fishing trip and possible subsequent car race, the defendants filed a motion with the court to compel the production of the requested information.   The court granted that motion and ordered the plaintiff to provide all of the requested user/login names and passwords.

Recognizing broad discovery rules, the court determined that any information and documents can be discoverable by another party as long as they are relevant to the case and not otherwise privileged. The court in McMillen refused to create a new privilege for social networking sites (none has previously existed), and further found that the private portions of plaintiff’s sites could be relevant to “impeach and contradict his disability and damages claims.”   Specifically, the court noted:

“Millions of people join Facebook, MySpace, and other social network sites, and as various news accounts have attested, more than a few use those sites indiscreetly. . . . When they do and their indiscretions are pertinent to issues raised in a lawsuit in which they have been named, the search for truth should prevail to bring to light relevant information that may not otherwise have been known. Where there is an indication that a person’s social network sites contain information relevant to the prosecution or defense of a lawsuit, therefore, and given [the] admonition that the courts should allow litigants to utilize “all rational means for ascertaining the truth,” and the law’s general dispreference for the allowance of privileges, access to those sites should be freely granted.”

Employer Take Away:   What should you as an employer take away from this development?

(1)        As the trend will likely continue in favor of social media disclosure over privacy objections, you should continue to understand that nothing written or posted on blogs or other Internet sites will absolutely remain confidential and not subject to viewing by the public.   Be vigilant in your policies and practices to make sure that social media-related statements or conduct of your managers and employees do not have the potential to expose your company to liability.

(2)        You should understand that the McMillen case reflects the current sentiment toward open disclosure of social media sites generally, and not just for personal injury lawsuits. You should recognize, therefore, that social media can, and should, be a potential tool and valuable source of information in employment-related cases where an individual’s physical activities and emotional relationships are very often at issue.