Social Media and the Holidays

Posted on November 23, 2011 by V. John Ella

 As the holidays approach, I am reminded of an employment law attorney I used to know who wrote a column about this time of year about holiday parties. He would warn Human Resources (“HR”) professionals to beware of sexual harassment issues as the punch flows and inhibitions dissipate at the annual office get-together.  How things have changed. In this era of Facebook and I-phones, every day is a holiday party in terms of potential liability. It used to be the only photographic evidence of employee carousal was a black and white photocopy of someone’s derriere. Now, smart phones capture everything in full color pixilation and the evidence is posted instantly. We may never know what Herman Cain and his associates were up to in the 1990s, but if it had happened now, you can bet there would be a text, tweet, or digital photo to add fuel to the Yule log fire.

As 2011 draws to a close, most employers have realized they cannot ignore social media. Social media exponentially increases a company’s opportunity for marketing. But HR folks also know that social media exponentially increases the opportunities for employees to do silly things and get in trouble. More than one fast food franchise has had to respond to digital photos posted on line of teen-aged employees bathing in a restaurant sink. Even folks who ought to know better, including an NFL quarterback and a United States Congressman, allegedly sent digital photos of their sugarplums to women who either did not want them, or did not mind sharing them on the Internet.

Based on my conversations with members of corporate HR departments, in the 2012 New Year they will be facing Social Media 2.0 – Rise of the Smart Phones.  Anyone who does not already have a smart phone will probably get one for Hanukkah or Christmas. All employers should already have a social media policy addressing expectations of privacy, anti-harassment, overtime, trade secret protection, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) restrictions, and exceptions for concerted activity and protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act.  Next year, employers will need to consider whether certain categories of employees should be required to keep smart phones locked away during business hours and will also need to respond to the growing demands by employees that they be allowed to conduct confidential company business on their personal I-phone.

Many employment law attorneys and HR managers may be asking Santa for a respite from the technology onslaught, and may need a drink at the holiday party as much as the next employee.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Florida's New "Sexting" Law Makes it Criminal for Minors to Transmit Sexually Explicit Materials Electronically

Posted on July 12, 2011 by Joseph Lazzarotti

. . . A Potential Headache for Employers of Younger Workers

Written by Lillian Moon

Retail, entertainment, hospitality and other industries that traditionally employ large numbers of younger workers may soon get dragged into criminal proceedings because of “sexting” by their younger workers. Florida has joined 20 other states — Alaska, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Guam — which have all enacted similar legislation addressing teen sexting. Because employees frequently transmit these materials using their employer’s networks, criminal prosecutions under these laws may require employers to respond to discovery requests and subpoenas, or permit searches pursuant to warrants obtained by law enforcement authorities, which, in turn, may unexpectedly trigger disciplinary proceedings.

On June 21, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law H.B.75/S.B. 888. Under this law, which will take effect beginning October 1, 2011, a minor (anyone under the age of 18) commits the criminal act of “sexting” if he or she knowingly uses a computer, cell phone, or other transmission device (1) to transmit or distribute to another minor a photograph or video of any person which depicts nudity; or (2) possesses such photograph or video which was transmitted or distributed by another minor, unless the photograph was unsolicited, the minor took reasonable steps to report the photograph or video to their legal guardian, school official, or law enforcement, and the minor did not transmit or distribute the video or photograph to a third party. A minor’s first offense is considered noncriminal and is punishable by 8 hours or community service or a $60 fine. The minor’s second offense is a misdemeanor in the first degree, punishable with imprisonment not to exceed one year or a $1,000 fine; and the minor’s third offense is a felony of third degree, punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.

Of course, sexting is not only an issue for minors. It is fast becoming an easy and well-utilized mechanism for sexual and other workplace harassment. Accordingly, employers should review and update their anti-harassment policies to include a prohibition of harassment via e-mail, text messaging, or use of social networking sites; and they should review their electronic communications policies to include a prohibition against using any employer-provided electronic device to transmit or retain any sexually suggestive or explicit pictures, texts, videos or any other derogatory material regarding race, ethnicity, age, disability, religion, or any other protected category. Employers should also educate and train employees on the revised policies and continue to enforce all policies in a fair and consistent manner. At the same time, employers should remain mindful of any limitations on such policies (as written or as applied) that may be imposed under the National Labor Relations Act.
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Like Tweet LinkedIn ">Email

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Texting/Privacy Case -- City of Ontario v. Quon

Posted on April 19, 2010 by Jason C. Gavejian

As highlighted by many news sources, including CNN.com and MSNBC.com, the United States Supreme Court listened to oral argument (pdf) today in the case of City of Ontario v. Quon today. This is the case involving a police officer who claimed his employer violated his privacy when it read the personal text messages (which happened to be sexually explicit in nature) which he sent and received using his department issued pager.  For further information concerning this case, see our prior analysis, as well as the discussion at Inc.com. Stay tuned for an update following the Supreme Court's decision. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Like Tweet LinkedIn Email

Texting & Sexting - Supreme Court to Consider Employees' Expectation of Privacy in Text Messages

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Jason C. Gavejian

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, and Lloyd Scharf v. Jeff Quon, et al. highlights the effects new technologies continue to have on workplace privacy issues. One issue the Court will consider is whether a California police department violated the privacy of one of its officers when it read the personal text messages on his department issued pager. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court sided with the police officer when it ruled that users of text messaging services “have a reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding messages stored on the service provider’s network.

The underlying suit was filed by police Sgt. Jeff Quon, his wife, his girlfriend, and another police sergeant after one of Quon’s superiors audited his messages and found that many of them were sexually explicit and personal in nature.   Among the defendants were the City of Ontario, the Ontario Police Department, and Arch Wireless Operating. Co. Inc. Plaintiffs sought damages for alleged violation of their privacy rights.

While this case involves a public sector entity, its outcome is likely to affect electronic communications policies and practices across the country, whether by public or privacy employers.  

Arch Wireless contracted with the employer, the City of Ontario, California, to provide text-messaging services using pagers. The City distributed the pagers to various employees, including Jeffery Quon, a Sergeant in the Ontario Police Department. Quon, along with other employees, signed an "Employee Acknowledgment" of the City’s general "Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail Policy" which stated that the City reserved the right to "monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice," and that "[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." Quon also attended a meeting during which a police Lieutenant stated that pager messages "were considered e-mail, and that those messages would fall under the City's policy as public information and eligible for auditing." While each pager was allotted a certain number of characters per month, Quon exceeded his allotment on several occasions. The Lieutenant attempted to determine whether the overages were business-related and obtained transcripts of text messages for the employees with overages. After auditing the transcripts provided by Arch Wireless the matter was referred to the City's Internal Affairs agency, which determined that Quon exceeded his monthly character allotment and many of his messages were personal and not business-related.

While the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their text messages, it held a trial on the issue of the employer's intent in conducting the search. If the search was to uncover misconduct rather than to determine character allotment overages, it would be a violation of the plaintiffs' privacy rights. The jury found that the employer's intent was to determine character allotment overages, and the court entered judgment in favor of the employer. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, addressing whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages, held that he did because the City:

·         had a practice of not reviewing the messages if employees paid the overage charges, and

·         did not review Quon's messages even though he exceeded the character allotment several times. 

Significantly, the court held that the City's practice trumped its own written policy, its employees' acknowledgements that they had no privacy interest in electronic communications, and its statements in staff meetings that it viewed text messages as e-mail.

To determine if the search was reasonable, the court evaluated whether the search was "justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Although the appellate court agreed that there were reasonable grounds for conducting the search, it found the scope of the search unreasonable. The court found overbroad the City's review of the actual messages to determine the number of characters used. Because the City reviewed the content of all the messages, the search was excessively intrusive and violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and rights under the California Constitution, the court held.

The Supreme Court will examine whether the Ontario Police Department’s employees should expect privacy for personal text messages they send and receive on police pagers and whether the Department’s official “no-privacy” policy conflicts with its informal policy of allowing some personal use of pagers. The Supreme Court will also look at whether the Circuit Court’s decision bypassed Supreme Court precedents and created a circuit conflict when it analyzed whether police brass could have used “less intrusive methods” of reviewing the officer’s text messages. 

Estimates are that 100 million people will utilize text messages in 2010. As a first step, employers must be prepared with comprehensive computer and electronic equipment usage policies. Further, as this case illustrates, it is critical that practices and policies be consistent, and that policies reflect current technologies. Employers also should consider requiring employees to acknowledge receiving and reviewing these and similar policies and procedures, particularly as new technologies are introduced.. While this area of the law remains unsettled, a well drafted policy will serve to lower an employee’s expectation of privacy when using employer owned equipment, although it remains to be seen what the Court will hold. 
Tags: , , , , , ,
Like Tweet LinkedIn Email