social media

Subscribe to social media

*Special thanks to Porter Wright summer law clerk, Grace Brown, for her assistance with this post.

It’s the summer of 2020, and someone from your company posts to her public Facebook page saying, “If Black people truly wanted equality, then they wouldn’t be isolating themselves into a separate group with Black Lives Matter. All lives matter!”

Your social media marketing team discovers the employee’s post after it was shared by someone who accuses that employee, and your company, of being racist.

What do you do?
Continue Reading How employers can respond to social justice and free speech issues on social media

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an opinion that reversed a decision by the National Labor Relations Board about whether a comment by a management representative was a threat to workers or a mere joke. The NLRB decision sheds interesting light on how remarks, such as this specific employer’s tweet, meant in jest can backfire. Fortunately for this employer, on appeal the Third Circuit “got the joke.”
Continue Reading Third Circuit decides employer’s tweet was comedic, not coercive

In many employment cases, the parties engage in a battle over content in the plaintiff’s private social media accounts. The recent decision from the U.S. District Court in Eastern District of Michigan in Robinson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, Case No. 17-CV-13128 (E.D. Mich. 1/17/2019) illustrates well how an employer can demonstrate its right…

bradswifeThough you may find it hard to believe, there are some things that southern comfort food and a glass of sweet tea just can’t smooth over. Restaurant chain, Cracker Barrel, is finding this out the hard way this week as it draws the ire of the public after Bradley Reid Byrd, the husband of a former Cracker Barrel employee posted one simple question on Cracker Barrel’s Facebook page on Feb. 27, 2017: “Why did you fire my wife?”

The post went largely unnoticed until March 22, 2017 when comedian Amiri King posted the screen grab (above) to his Facebook page and the ordeal went viral.Continue Reading #Justiceforbradswife: Responding to viral social media

It’s hard to believe that what someone says on social media may not be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The truth is, people are more likely to say things on social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, that they would never say to or about a person directly because the computer gives people a false impression that they can say or do whatever they want without repercussion. But as we have warned time and time again, comments made on social media sites may not be as private as the commenter may believe and can be very damaging, especially when those comments concern workplace issues, and even more so when they make allegations of workplace misconduct. Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, Inc., Nos. 12-3072 and 12-3109 (10th Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) is a case that demonstrates just how an employee may feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof sitting at a computer keyboard, but whose tone changes when the repercussions from a social media post become all too real.
Continue Reading When an Employee’s 10-Foot-Tall and Bulletproof Attitude on Social Media Becomes a Workplace Reality (and Nightmare)

Within the last month, courts have taken steps to protect communications made via social media. For example, in Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., No. 2:11-cv-03305 (D.N.J. Aug 20, 2013), which we reported on here, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that private Facebook posts are protected under the Stored Communications Act. On the heels of that decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bland v. Roberts, 12-1671 (4th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013) overturned a district court decision that had held that public employees’ Facebook “Likes” were not protected speech under the First Amendment. (Remember of course, that public employees, unlike the employees of private businesses, have limited First Amendment rights to speak out on matters of public concern.)…
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Holds “Liking” a Facebook Page is Protected Speech in the Public Employment Context. What Does This Mean In the Private Employment Context? Well, It Won’t Stop Those Annoying Farmville or Candy Crush Invitations

In another Facebook firing case, involving two separate terminations, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that a company violated and did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) after terminating employees for posting comments on Facebook.
Continue Reading One Facebook Firing Case. Two Terminations. NLRB Finds Only One Unlawful and Notes How It Treats Malicious and Untrue Posts

Following up on my recent post on the case, I had the chance to speak with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN regarding the New Jersey case in which the court ruled an employer could fire an employee for a Facebook update reported to them by the employee’s coworker and Facebook Friend. In the interview, I explain the basics of the case and what we can learn from it.
Continue Reading Video Interview: Discussing the “Frenemy” Facebook Firing Case with LXBN TV

As long as there has been Facebook, attorneys have been scratching their heads asking whether Facebook posts fall under the purview of the Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”). In Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., No. 2:11-cv-03305 (WJM) (D.N.J. Aug 20, 2013) the District Court for the State of New Jersey gave us its opinion by holding that non-public Facebook posts, which are configured to be private are indeed covered under the SCA because they are……
Continue Reading Court Finds Non-Public Facebook Posts Are Covered By The Stored Communications Act–But Not Posts Produced By A User’s Frenemy

Stewart v. CUS Nashville, LLC, No. 3:11-cv-0342, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16035 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2013) serves as a cautionary tale to employers about the disastrous impact that can happen when managers and social media collide. And while this case turned out well for the employer in the end, that end was…