Social Media Recruiting: TMI (Part II)

Best Practices for Recruiters to Prevent Lawsuits
Part I of this series focused on the legal risks that recruiters should be aware of when they recruit using Social Media. In Part II, I will discuss some Best Practices or Guidelines for Recruiters to implement on the job so as to avoid these landmines.

A company must have a Social Media Policy for all of its employees, but Recruiters, as employees who use Social Media as part of their role on a daily basis, must have enhanced rules or guidelines for their specific and unique role in the organization. This will ensure that recruitment is handled in a consistent manner throughout the organization, regardless of who is doing the recruiting or where the recruiting takes place.

Most Social Media policies that are specific to recruitment are called “Best Practices” as opposed to “Policies.” This term seems to highlight the flexibility required when recruiting unique individuals as “Best Practices” can be interpreted as “suggestions” as opposed to mandated rules. It is important to consider whether your organization wants to allow the recruiter to have discretion as to whether to implement the suggested practices or whether it makes more sense to mandate the requirements by calling them “rules” or instituting a recruitment “policy.”

Whether your company calls it “Best Practices” or a “Recruiting Policy” or something else, recruiters should do the following when recruiting while using Social Media sites:

• Identify which Social Media sites your company will use in recruitment.
• Identify yourself as a recruiter for the Company. Act as a Company Representative.
• Be consistent in your company's recruitment approach.
• If possible, insulate protected category information from the hiring manager.
• Maintain proper documentation and tracking throughout the recruiting process.
• Create a user experience that highlights the company as a wonderful place to work.
  
  

A Monster, Indeed!

Before incorporating Social Media searches in recruiting, the organization should identify the Social Media sites they wish to use, focusing on securing relevant, work-related information. The choice should not be random (or based on the sites that the C-Suite has heard of.) For example, According to Kissmetrics, Digg has the largest demographic of users with a graduate degree and Stumbleupon is popular among graphic designers. Each site has unique user information and should be selected with careful consideration as to why/how it will help your organization recruit effectively. The reasons should be documented in the event that the company needs to offer a business justification later on.

For example, Unisys, an Information Technology company, explains its recruitment strategy this way, “In aligning with our corporate strategy, there were four main social networks that we wanted to focus on for our recruiting effort: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn...In addition to these big name online communities, we worked closely with Unisys regional operations around the world to identify niche social recruiting sites that worked well for their regions, such as Orkut in India and Brazil. Facebook, for example, was not allowed in China, so we are exploring alternative social media outlets there. Unisys uses each social media outlet differently...LinkedIn, on the other hand, is a network whose members are looking for information about and opportunities for professional growth. As such, it’s become a powerful and cross-promotional part of our social media strategy. …After all, hiring the right talent is a business objective, not simply an HR objective."

The search should seek publicly available information. Recruiters should not allow the searcher or others in the recruiting department to “friend” an applicant in order to see private profile information. Recruiters must remember that all “conversations” and “searches” can be retrieved and used as evidence in litigation. Recruiters should be careful and conscious when engaging in online conversations about discussing “protected category” or personal information. Recruiters should remember that even though they are/have “Friends” and “Fans,” that they are actually creating professional connections and to act accordingly in all communications.For example, P&G wants its company recruiters to use Social Media to create relationships with Generation Y as part of P&G’s Next Generation Attraction campaign. In pursuing this business initiative, P&G is clear that it wants the students (future hires) to initiate the first contact with P&G. As part of its Social Media and Recruiting Best Practices, it states, “Etiquette: Students can often feel anxious about companies’ access to their personal profiles. Therefore, our stance in using social media tools for recruiting will be passive. When communicating with students, it is imperative to let the student initiate first contact with the Company. Focus on maintaining communication with only those students that have expressed an interest in P&G – from there, please feel at ease using sites as communication tools to build relationships with candidates. Additionally, we should never send mass messages or “spam” candidates.”

Let’s Be Crystal Clear

Recruiters must be transparent about their role as recruiters and that they work for your company when recruiting candidates online. This will not only ensure that your company does not run afoul of FTC transparency requirements, but will allow talent to identify them as trusted allies in the hiring process. It is important, however, that you inform your recruiters to not only identify themselves and their company while engaging potential hires online, but that they must either keep their personal sites separate and use a disclaimer to set forth that their personal opinions are their own, or in the alternative, that they solely act as company spokespeople, do not have personal sites, and act with all of the responsibility that this role entails.

Recruiters should use the official company logo and brand as official company spokespeople acting in that capacity. Continuity of logo, brand and corporate strategy should be consistently used in Social Media, even by recruiters, so as to ensure potential hires know and trust your company as a trusted potential employer. Finally, company recruiters should be told clearly that company sites, logos and the followings that gather there are company property. That means that even when the recruiter leaves your company, that the recruiter understands that they may not unilaterally change the profile name to their own and take the “Friends” and “Followers” with them as their own following.

For example, in a case that may be one of first impression, Phonedog, a mobile news and review company, is suing a former employee for “taking” 17,000 Twitter followers with him when he left the company. According to Forbes.com, Noah Kravitz worked as a mobile phone reviewer for Phonedog for four and a half years. He had been part of a “virtual office,” so when he left the site in October 2010, the only thing he really ‘packed up’ was his Twitter account. He had started it in 2007 and chose the Twitter handle @PhoneDog_Noah. When he left Phonedog, he had approximately 17,000 followers and changed his Twitter handle to @noahkravitz. Phonedog is suing Kravitz for the value of those followers and for stealing their trade secret information (in the form of followers, much like a customer list) and Kravitz’s password. Although Kravitz was not a recruiter for Phonedog, this case stands represents for employers that they must set the ground rule out early that recruiters’ relationships made online and on behalf of the company are proprietary information owned by the company.

Consistently Consistent

Recruiters must approach online resumes with a consistent approach. That means that searches should be conducted either before the initial interview or after the first phone screen, but at the same time for every applicant. The same process should be followed for each candidate without regard to protected categories. If the company is not conducting Social Media screening for every applicant, than the company should objectively designate particular job categories or departments that are included and consistently follow those guidelines. Consistency based on objective criteria and job qualifications will help your recruiters defeat a claim that they had intent to discriminate against any one candidate. Consistency is the key. Therefore, in larger companies that employ many recruiters, (especially those that work virtually and do not have the opportunity to talk-shop with their peers) training the recruiters about these consistency requirements is critical.

Every applicant must be informed that the application process includes a Social Media check, if this is part of the process. In some states and for some applicants, this will include a notice and waiver, as we discussed previously, to comply with the federal and state consumer reporting requirements. All of this must be consistent and proactively prepared ahead of time with every recruiter having a thorough understanding of the company’s consistent processes. Recruiters must understand the unique Social Media “paperless process” of online recruiting from posting a job description, receiving the resumes, following up with a contact for interviewing, providing the appropriate FCRA notice/waivers, ending eventually with an offer letter. If all of this is done virtually, the recruiter must be a literal “expert” on topic so as to field the email questions that many applicants have throughout the process. For example, is your recruiter prepared to explain the notification process when an adverse action (no hire) occurs based on information that surfaced as a result of a Social Media screening of the applicant? Training recruiters about this “paperless process” can prevent an uniformed mistake from turning into a lawsuit, evidenced by your recruiters smoking gun email.

Watch out for the rogue manager/interviewer who does not know the laws about lawful recruitment and hiring. I have seen many companies invest huge sums in educating the recruiters and hiring managers about lawful hiring practices and interviewing, only to have an applicant interview one-on-one with the person they will be working with or working for…who knows nothing about these laws. Without proper education about protected categories, for example, a casual conversation between potential colleagues will quickly trail to questions about the kids, the wife, and even religious practices. All of which are taboo in the interview process. To make matters worse, when the interview is conducted via chat or by email, as is often the case when recruitment is done virtually, these inappropriate questions leave an online trail that can be used against the employer in litigation.

I Did Not Just See That

If only we had the ability to erase some things from our memories. Certainly, the eighties for me are long gone, but that is not by choice. By now you understand that there are serious legal implications for employers who know personal information about applicants, such as their age or that they are pregnancy that give rise to discrimination lawsuits. The idea is not to pretend that you do not know this information if you do know it, but rather to take as many steps as possible to show that all recruitment and hiring decisions are made based on legitimate job criteria, qualifications and experience, rather than on the personal information we learn about candidates.

Because Social Media undermines that effort simply by providing recruiters with pictures of applicants and their user profiles, the best strategy for companies that can have more than one person doing the recruiting and hiring or who outsource this, is to insulate the decision maker from the recruiter or screener who may see protected category information at first blush (pun intended). The searcher or recruiter may cover up, redact or eliminate the protected category information, which will allow the ultimate decision maker to decide whom to interview or hire based on the information that is not protected under the law, such as how many years of experience the employee has had doing the job for others. That may not help a recruiter avoid a claim that there was discrimination in the recruitment process, but it will help defend against a claim of discrimination in the hiring process, which is more common, as vested applicants are more likely to sue than those who never reached the interview stage.

Am I Being Redundant?
It is my perception that employment lawyers tend to fall into two categories: those that advocate a lot of documentation by managers and those who do not. The latter fear the smoking gun, which emanates from an overly documenting, yet untrained workforce. The former group says document everything. I fall into the former group. I say, “document, document, document.” Am I being redundant? In online recruiting, one Best Practice, in my opinion, is for recruiters to consistently document the results of the Social Media searches, (removing any protected information). Search results should be maintained consistently with the organization’s record keeping policies. Also, the legal, legitimate reasons for ultimate hiring decision should be documented. If the company rejects applicants based on Social Media search results, this decision should be based on a legitimate, job-related reason (for example, the applicant lied on their resume about having a graduate degree) and documented.

Don’t forget to inform all of your employees that they should not be doing their own Social Media searches, investigations or “Googling” candidates, as tempting as that may be.

You Will Love It Here
Another key distinction between recruiting online as opposed to traditional means of recruitment is that recruiting employees through Social Media requires recruiters to actively create a user experience for the applicants. That is, recruiters should not just post jobs on job boards, they should also engage in conversations about recruiting, about their company’s unique talent, about what it is like to work at the company, about the amazing initiatives or causes that the company supports and responding to job seekers questions, concerns and commentary. Therefore, another Best Practice for recruiters is to leverage the unique nature of Social Media to engage potential applicants in dialogues that will ultimately, but indirectly, attract the best talent to your company. That being said, recruiters must be diligent about monitoring these Social Media conversations. When the conversations turn "ugly" or a disgruntled ex-employee begins to post, recruiters must partner with PR and Legal to ensure that the company's brand is protected and no "protected concerted activity" is taking place, before the recruiter can "react" in writing.

In Careerbuilder’s “Best Practices For Using Social Media to Recruit,” it says, "Create A User Experience: Social Media is about creating an open dialogue and building relationships with others. Create a space where current and potential employees can interact – sharing success stories about working with your organization – and responding to job seeker’s questions. Listen Learn and Engage: The most important thing you can do on any site is to listen to your audience – both what they are saying to you and what they are saying about you. Don’t be afraid to respond: There is no better way to build trust with your community. Highlight Specific Jobs: Go beyond posting all your job openings: Provide talent unique job information about the company itself. Help candidates understand why your company is the right place for them. This is the most important practice, in my opinion. Engaging the community in dialogue about how amazing your company is to work for and how they can help your company succeed. Do not, however, make any promises that guarantee employment or create a contract for employment by discussing start dates, wages or benefits until the offer letter is sent out.

Another example of leveraging Social Media to recruit talent is the US Army’s official game "America's Army" that allows players to virtually participate in training missions and fight one another online. "America's Army" is a free-to-play game that has become a more effective recruiting tool for the Army than all other Army advertisements combined. In addition to attracting recruits through gaming, the America’s Army website provides inspiring personal video stories of soldiers who “found their strengths with an Army lifestyle.”

Certainly, there are many potential lawsuits to “fear” when engaging in Social Media recruitment. The “fear” however should not preclude you or your company from advancing, along with technology, into the foray. Rather implement these Best Practices, and do not be afraid to enjoy the benefit that comes from Social Media recruiting, which is getting to know your audience, engaging them in conversations about what you love, namely recruiting for your company or organization, and brag about the many positive accomplishments it has achieved.

Do not fear the Social Media savvy applicant. Many employers are wary of employees that use Social Media a lot, especially when the job for which this applicant is being recruited would not benefit from this skill set. They question whether they should even hire an executive assistant who in her spare time blogs voraciously about cooking and has over 15,000 followers dedicated to her Twitter profile. Many states, including California, do prohibit discrimination in the recruitment and hiring process based on lawful off-duty conduct. Deciding not to hire someone just because they are active Social Media users, may qualify as lawful off-duty conduct. The decision to hire or not to hire should always be based on legitimate, objective criteria related to the specific job qualifications.

*The use of company examples and policy examples, herein are not an endorsement by me of any of these practices or a legal opinion about these company practices or policies, which I did not write or review.

Social Media Recruiting: TMI (Part I)

How Recruiters Can Prevent Social Media Lawsuits (Part I)

According to a 2011 Society for Human Resource Management Survey on the topic of recruiting online only 18% of the companies surveyed use Social Networking sites to recruit talent. According to the Survey, “It appears that only a small number of organizations are using online search engines and social networking websites to screen job candidates. The primary reasons for not using these methods are the legal risks, the lack of verifiable data and the lack of the job-relatedness of much of the information found online.”

Although there are true benefits to recruiting online, namely access to a wider diverse talent database, efficiency in the computerized process of screening qualified candidates, reduced time-to-hire in a 24/7 search method and reduced recruiting costs, just to name a few, the “fear” of lawsuits is still holding companies back from using Social Media to assist them in recruitment. Why do employers think that Social Media is “riskier” than traditional recruitment methods? Because Social Media is “transparent” with information – or should I say, “TMI” (Too Much Information.) That is, the information that recruiters have long been trained to “avoid” such as not asking an employee how long he’s been married, or what church his family visits on Sundays, in order to avoid a claim of discrimination, is transparently glaring at the recruiter via the employee’s Social Networking profile.

The most obvious difference between recruiting talent online using Social Media sites, such as LinkedIn, and recruiting offline, using traditional means, such as newspaper advertisements for example, is the profile picture of the potential candidate that often accompanies their online site resumes. Why is the “picture” of a candidate or their “user profile” such a problem for recruiters now? Because the picture of your potential hire is worth a thousand words.

What is visible from a LinkedIn profile picture that gets a recruiter into legal trouble? From a single profile photograph, a recruiter can guess a candidate’s gender, national origin, age, race, color and ancestry, among other things. From a user profile, a recruiter can guess about marital status and sexual orientation. From Facebook Wall postings or other blog postings, a recruiter can guess religion, medical condition or disability, or even genetic information. In doing so, a recruiter is open to allegations that hiring decisions are based on “protected categories” that federal and some state laws, such as California, prohibit as categories that can be considered in making a hiring decision, including the recruitment process. Collectively, these anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act of 2008, among others federal statutes as well as state statutes, including California's Fair Housing & Employment Act, and local ordinances, prohibit recruiters on behalf of the their employers from intentionally discriminating in the recruitment and hiring process.

For example, your company wants to recruit talent for an open Customer Service position and you have identified a hot-shot that seems perfectly qualified for the role. The hot-shot interviews throughout the company and seems a good fit until one manager informs you that she isn’t a “culture fit” because her LinkedIn profile shows she is a member of the Muslim Business Network group. Using this information as the basis for any employment decision, including the decision not to hire or recruit can get you and your company in legal hot water and violates the anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.

As a fun exercise, check out your own LinkedIn or Facebook profile and see how many protected categories you can infer. Someone recruiting me can identify from my LinkedIn profile and my linked blog entries information about my gender, my marital status, my national origin, my religion, my race, my sexual orientation and my age (from my year of graduation, not from my picture, which is ten years old.) What can I say? I haven’t looked that good since.

Moreover, these anti-discrimination statutes also prohibit recruiters from unintentional discrimination in the recruitment process by prohibiting conduct that creates a disparate impact on the workforce and is also not justified by a business necessity. The EEOC uses this example to explain disparate impact in recruitment: “An employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic.” Disparate impact is a problem for recruiters using Social Media because of the transparency about these sites’ user’s demographic. For example, if your company chooses to only recruit talent through Twitter, posting tweets about open positions on your company’s Twitter profile, this can expose your company to a disparate impact claim. Quantcast.com has posted Twitter’s user’s demographics as 67% Caucasian and 3% Asian. An Asian applicant might argue that the recruitment process has a disparate impact on Asian applicants. Without a business justification for this, the company will be hard-pressed to demonstrate otherwise.

Certainly, one might think that the best way for a company to protect itself from a claim of intentional discrimination in the recruitment process is to outsource the recruitment process to a third party that will screen the applicants and eliminate or redact “protected category” information, thereby allowing the company to assert a defense if needed that it was not aware of the protected characteristics throughout the hiring process. This is, in fact, what many companies do. However, these are “best laid plans” because in reality, outsourced recruitment gives rise to additional statutory requirements, namely, compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its state statutory equivalents.

In June 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a blog article, ‘The Fair Credit Reporting Act & Social Media: What Businesses Should Know,’ which clearly stated that employers who use outsourced “Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs)” are obligated to comply with FCRA. The FTC said, “Employment background checks can include information from a variety of sources: credit reports, employment and salary history, criminal records–and these days, even social media. But regardless of the type of information in a report you use when making hiring decisions, the rules are the same.” Therefore, the Companies providing reports to employers–and employers using reports–must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”

Certainly, handing over Social Media screening in recruitment to a third party may seem like the best way out of a discrimination allegation, but in doing so, you may be allowing the third party to substitute their judgment for yours. In a recent online Wall Street Journal article, Kim Harmer, a partner at Harmer Associates, a Chicago based recruiting firm, stated "I look at their Facebook and see how they approach what they put on it. Is it immature? Appropriate or inappropriate? I'm not judging their activity but looking at how they communicate what they do and their thoughts and their judgments to the public as a reflection of what they will do with clients and team members." Although the use of outsourced Social Media recruiting and screening agencies can allow an employer to filter out protected category information, ultimately, the employer is also taking a legal risk by putting their trust in another’s judgment to determine the criteria for screening out applicants and redacting information.

Of course, an obvious solution is to not screen applicant’s Social Media activity at all. Certainly, this is what the 82% of those surveyed by SHRM are thinking. Unfortunately, this also leaves an employer vulnerable legally. An employer who could have easily discovered an applicant was terminated for cyber-bullying his former coworker by simply viewing his public Facebook postings, may be accused of negligent hiring when that employee repeats this behavior after your company hires him.

So, what can employers do to avoid the double-edged sword of online recruitment? First, in order to avoid a claim of intentional discrimination, employers must be able to justify that the recruited employees are being recruited based on objective, measurable job related qualifications and that these are the only qualifications being considered. This is accomplished with a well designed job-description, carefully crafted interview questions that ask about job qualifications, not personal characteristics, and training everyone who interviews the applicant or meets the applicant about legal hiring practices and protected categories. If the employer outsources the Social Media screening process, a carefully designed list of sought-after qualifications should be designed by the employer so as not to “hand over” the process to a third party that may not understand your company’s needs. Finally, the employer must ensure that the third party recruiters are adhering to the credit reporting statutes, both state and federal throughout the process. If the process is not outsourced, it is wise to ask applicants to sign Social Media waivers anyway, thereby notifying them that their Social Media activity is being evaluated in the process.

It is not wise to require your applicants to give you their passwords to access their high privacy setting or “pretend-friend” them to see information you think they are hiding from you. The City of Bozeman, Montana required applicants to supply their username and password information to Social Media sites, but the public outcry against it made them curtail this practice. Whether unlawful or not, your company may run afoul of the Terms of Use of some Social Networking sites that prohibit sharing passwords or the Stored Communications Act by “asking” for passwords, as most employee-applicants will want the job so badly that they will “agree” without truly wanting to give you this information. Notwithstanding, surreptitious means for gaining information is never a good employment practice.

I know what you are thinking. What’s the point? If you tell them you are going to check their Social Media, then they will just clean it up or delete their drunken party twitpics. Now, how will you really know if your potential new-hire has a cocaine addiction or a penchant to bad-mouth his supervisors? But, the legal truth is, if you want to screen your potential employees, legally, without exposing yourself to increased liability, the only way to do it is to tell them you are going to do it, get their permission to do it, and then if something bad pops up, give them a chance to explain it. In the end, it isn’t about “catching” someone in the act of online foolishness, but about making sure that the person you hire is the “right” person for the job, based on the objective, qualifications of the job or based on the company’s stated goals and values.

In order to defeat a claim of disparate impact, the best practice is to diversify the online Social Media sites you use so that one site’s demographic profile does not define your recruitment strategy. Second, use an online aggregator, such as indeed.com or careerbuilder.com, which will aggregate from various Social Media sites. Third, compliment your online recruitment strategy with traditional means, such as paper postings, internal job postings, and college and university recruitment and job fairs. The more diversified your approach, the more diversified the pool of applicants. Thus, defeating a disparate impact claim.

It is a good practice to include offline recruitment as part of your recruiting strategy if for no other reason that some people do not have access to these sites or prefer not to participate in Social Networking or share information on the Internet, including their personal phone numbers, which would be something that one might include on a resume.

Certainly, if your decision to recruit online is based on reducing the costs of recruitment, implementing all of the above strategies will undermine this economic purpose. If that is your motive, than the best advice is to do your homework about the sites you choose to recruit from. Research and learn their user’s demographic. Make an informed decision based on the statistical information available to you. In other words, do not go blindly into the night of recruiting online. Know the publicly available demographic information of the sites you are using for recruitment purposes before they are used against you. Remember, that a business justification can defeat a disparate impact claim. If you need your new-hire to be bilingual in English and Spanish, it may be justifiable that you only posted the job on ihispano.com. Therefore, giving due consideration to the business justification for your open position is worth it. Another good idea is to always post and promote your company’s positions on your own company’s website. This will open the job to the entire web and defeat a claim that you limited the recruitment process based on protected categories. Finally, always include the fact that your company is an “equal opportunity employer” on all job postings. Thereby, encouraging all qualified applicants of any color, gender, religion, or condition to apply for the position.

Part II of this series will focus on Social Media Recruiting
Best Practices for Recruiters

I'm Perfect. Why Should I Change?

I’m Jewish. Shocking - a lawyer born Katz and married to a Pritikin, who knew? Being, Jewish, I have just come out of High Holiday services where I celebrated Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. One of the things we do on the New Year is reflect on the past year to determine what types of conduct or behavior we can improve upon for the next year. This is actually something that I feel is an important corporate lesson to pass on to the many Human Resource professionals who read my blog (thanks to all 7 of you.) It is also a good time of year, in September/October for this type of reflection, as opposed to January 1, the other New Year, because it is this final quarter when many of you are preparing your Proposals for Training to the budget committees or business group for approval. Keeping in mind that my business mission is to proactively prevent lawsuits, it is my opinion that two critical topics have been glossed over or absent from many companies training agendas: 1) Preventing Social Media Abuse and 2) Preventing Retaliation Lawsuits. I have blogged and taught on these topics in the past year a great deal in order to raise awareness to these two areas where I believe companies are increasingly vulnerable to related litigation yet corporations are doing the least to prevent them. Certainly, you may read my rationales for this bold assertion in my previous blogs on Social Media and Preventing Retaliation. In a nutshell, Social Media Abuse is the “smoking gun lawsuit” of the future and Retaliation lawsuits are the #1 claim being made in the nation.

Perhaps preventing lawsuits isn’t a good enough reason for you to change the stellar Training Budget or Proposal that you put together last year that you know will be approved if you only switch out 2011 for 2012. If that is what you have in mind, let me relay a humorous anecdote that the rabbi told during his service yesterday. He said a manager was upset that after 20 years of dedicated service to his company, he was passed over for promotion at his company. The promotion was given to another gentleman who had been with the company for only 5 years. When the 20-year veteran complained that he had more tenure and demanded to know why he was passed over, the HR professional responded that the young man was bringing more experience to the job. The veteran asked, “How can that be so?” The HR professional explained that the other man was bringing 5 years of experience to the role, while the veteran was merely bringing one year of experience that he had performed over and over again for 20 years. The morale of the story that the rabbi conveyed was that people need to continue to grow and learn, whether it be in life or their jobs. We need to continue to push ourselves each year to learn new skills and have new experiences, instead of repeating the status quo each year. I would add, that for HR professionals, the onus is on this department to ensure that all of your employees are given the opportunities for new growth through trainings on topics that are newly relevant and impactful, with follow up to ensure that the trainings are implemented or transferred down the line throughout the year.

In designing training proposals, keep this in mind. Ask, “What topics and skills do my managers want/ need to know about to help them “lead” employees best in next year?” One of the biggest gifts you can give managers is the peace of mind that they know the rules and laws so that they can manage their teams without the worry of being sued for their missteps. The two topics I think that are critical for 2012 are trainings that cover Preventing Retaliation Lawsuits and Social Media Abuse. Happy New Year.

Social NOTworking PIHRA District Meetings

I am looking forward to presenting Social NOTworking to PIHRA Districts 19,12 & 1 in the next few weeks. In anticipation, here is my Sample Social Media Policy* and a link to a great article by CNN Money showing examples of Social Media abuse, entitled "6 All Time Favorite Social Media Screw Ups." If you plan on attending the meetings, you can anticipate learning the Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies to implement to prevent "screw ups" from happening at your company? I'll give you a hint. "Choo Choo The Train Stops Here." See you soon.

Related Posts: It's Business Not Personal, To Facebook Or Not To Facebook, Elvis Has Left the Building

* The samples are not intended to be "ready for use" by readers. In addition, they are not to be construed as legal advice. Rather, these forms are intended as samples and should be adapted to your particular company's needs. Although this work is copyrighted, you may freely use the content in creating or changing your own forms. I strongly encourage you to consult with a labor/employment attorney or contact me prior to using these forms within your company to ensure compliance.

Proactive Lawsuit Prevention LEADERSHIP Strategies

The focus of my business is about teaching other businesses how to prevent lawsuits. Much of my time is spent teaching awareness raising seminars, law based topics and CYA skills (that stands for Cover Your …you can figure it out on your own.) That is, I often train employees, management, human resources and even in-house counsel how to implement policies and procedures so that when an employee has an internal complaint, the company is primed to diffuse the lawsuit-bomb in order to avert a disgruntled employee from suing. These are what I have termed Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies.

For example, sexual harassment lawsuits are prevented when an employer has a strong policy which prohibits harassment, when employees are trained to take complaints to receptive managers, when human resources is prepared to investigate it, and when the company responsibly acts to remedy the harm done. These are examples of Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies and spreading this dogma is the mission of my business.

Yet, in reading a recent Harvard Business Review article, “The Big Idea: Leadership in the Age of Transparency” (April 2010) by Christopher Meyer and Julia Kirby, it occurred to me that I needed to be invoking an even more proactive “leadership” characteristic into my own curriculum. In their article, Meyer and Kirby make the case that “the true measure of corporate responsibility – and the key to a business’s playing a proper role in society – is the willing, constant internalization of externalities.” In my area of expertise, the “externality” is the extremely, remote, potential litigation. More than CYA tactics which prevent actual lawsuits, companies need to be looking at internalizing all the externalities inherent in employee relations, even the conflicts which may not necessarily give rise to litigation under the current laws or the externalities that a business is not forced to “pay for” by order of a court.

For example, although federal and state laws (Title VII and the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) in California) protect certain categories from unlawful harassment, i.e. sex, race, religion, etc., companies seeking to stand out as having leadership strategies would also respond to harassment based on “unprotected" categories. That is, when human resources receives a complaint from an employee that she is being “harassed” based on her weight or she complains about a singular “blond joke,” whether she can actually meet the legal criteria for a valid claim with the EEOC or Department of Fair Employment & Housing (in California) should be irrelevant. A leading company takes ownership of all complaints made by employees and seeks to provide a workplace free of any conduct that interferes with an employee’s ability to work optimally.

Why? According to Meyer and Kirby, the rationale goes beyond, “it’s the right thing to do.” Their article puts forth that our corporate society has become literally transparent. So that hiding a wrong is no longer an option. For example, the campaign by Phillip Morris in the 1980s to conceal evidence which linked smoking to lung cancer could not occur in today’s society of social media, whistle blower protections and instant messaging. According to the authors, “the worst of all worlds is to be made responsible, and still not be considered responsible.”

I agree with this premise that transparency demands higher accountability and recent case law supports it as well. In the case of Pietrylo v. Hillside Restaurant Group, disgruntled employees began a Myspace page which maligned their managers’ inappropriate behaviors. Although the company sought to force the employees to remove the page, the damage to the company’s reputation had been done. In a recent investigation I was asked to conduct, after interviewing the company’s employees, I learned that some employees, in reaction to the corporate officers’ secretive conduct, reactively began an anonymous blog which purposely leaked confidential company information to all employees. The availability of social media, the access to technology and the flattening of companies corporate structures encourages transparency. The company’s leadership role is to accept this and to act accountable to transparency’s offspring - heightened corporate responsibility to all externalities.

In the legal realm, that means protecting employees from conduct which has yet to be protected fully under the law, but which is still detrimental. For example, many companies employ an equal-opportunity bully. That is a person, who does not discriminate, but bullies all underlings similarly. Often under these circumstances, an employee may not be able to maintain a claim of unlawful harassment absent a showing of discriminatory behavior. (Although recent EEOC actions suggest that the agency and courts are beginning to recognize this behavior as actionable. See E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association (male supervisor’s temper tantrum had a disparate impact on female employees even when he treated male employees similarly.) A company that protects its employees from “bullying” by disciplining the bully is demonstrating its leadership by refusing to allow its employees to be mistreated, whether it can be “forced” to or not by a court of law or agency.

Similarly, employees who “haze” new employees must also be disciplined whether the law prohibits the specific hazing behavior or not. This is another example where a company can maintain a leadership policy which prohibits any hazing activities whether or not an employee can maintain a cause of action or not. (Some courts recognize hazing employees as actionable when the elements of sexual harassment or assault exist. The U.S. Supreme Court set this precedent in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.

What are other Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Leadership Strategies or other examples that you can think of? What legal externalities should your company internalize and act to remedy?

Elvis Has Left The Building

How to Protect Your Company from the Legal Hazards of Social Media Abuse



I am often asked the question by clients, counsel and Human Resource professionals, “Do I think their company should ban employees from using social media while at work?” Often those concerned will complain that their employees spend too much time on Facebook rather than work. Or that they can’t make their employees “think” before they “tweet” something (in 140 characters or less) that another employee finds offensive. Or, they heard a rumor that there is an anonymous company blog that badmouths the bosses. These are valid concerns for employers and those who must manage employee’s behaviors and productivity. According to recent studies, the average worker admits to spending more than 2 hours per 8 hour workday on the internet. Employees surfing the internet, including social networking sites and blogs, account for nearly 45% of that wasted time.

Yet despite the drawbacks, social media sites (such as Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and Myspace) have many business benefits. Social media sites can help employees augment their computer skills, hone communication skills, connect them with colleagues and mentors, and can be used to promote the values, goals and marketing interests of their employer. The challenge for a company now is to allow for the innovation of technology, including access to social media, while protecting itself and its employees from abuses. Therefore, my response to the question of whether a company should ban employees from using social media at work is always, “Elvis has left the building.” The social media train is moving too fast now for employers to stop it. According to Andrew S. Grove, chairman of Intel, “There are two companies – one that operates (with technology) and one that doesn’t…you’re either going to do it or you disappear.” In other words, social media is here to stay. Banning it is no longer an innovative, competitive, forward-thinking company’s best option.

Employers must accept the inevitability of social media’s presence in the workplace as much as they have accepted email, the fax machine and the intranet. Rather the best practice now for employers is to proactively plan for their employee’s abuse of social media and implement an iron clad policy which protects the employer from liability in the event of social media abuse. Certainly, there are no one-size-fits all policies that I can draft that would satisfy the needs of each and every company. Industry, company size, social media use and many other factors must be taken into consideration when designing these innovative policies. Fortunately, the internet is riddled with example social media policies. In case you do not believe me, here are 200 Sample Social Media Policies. I do not recommend or endorse any of these.

Nevertheless, in drafting or evaluating a social media policy make sure you include the following provisions that will deter employees from abusing social media and will allow your company cause for discipline or termination in the event that an employee does not comply with it:

1) State that an employee is permitted to access social media sites while at work as long as the use does not interfere with the optimum performance of their job. The company’s primary interest is in its employee’s productivity and the use of social media at the cost of this productivity undermines the Company’s business objectives.

2) State that the Company’s internet and email policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites from company computers. That is, the company owns the computers and technology and can and does monitor this usage. Employees should not have an expectation of privacy while using social media.

3) State that the Company’s discrimination and harassment policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites. Employees should be considerate of visual content displayed on their computer screens. Moreover, accessing sites that are pornographic, violent or have sexual or discriminatory content is prohibited. Finally, writing harassing, bullying or discriminatory statements about coworkers or management may also violate the harassment policy and is prohibited.

4) State that the Company has an expectation of loyalty from its employees that the employee will not make statements on behalf of the company or use the Company logo without express, written permission. Moreover, the Company expects that employees will not disparage or defame the company, its employees or its products on any social media site. The Company does not want its employees to respond to negative comments about the company, its employees or products without express, written consent.

5) State that the Company expects employees to act with high ethical standards when accessing social media websites. An employee must never represent him or herself or the Company in a false or misleading way. All statements must be true and not misleading. All claims must be substantiated. Finally, using social media for unlawful purposes is prohibited.

6) State that the Company’s trade secret and confidential communications policies apply to employee’s accessing social media sites. The Company expects that employees will not share company secrets, confidential information or discuss company litigation on social media sites. In the event that an employee inadvertently reveals such information, he or she should inform management immediately.

7) State that an employee who violates this Social Media Policy may be subject to discipline up to and including termination.

As important as the policy is to a company in protecting against abuse, so is its enforcement. Training management and staff is integral to Katz Consulting & Associates Proactive Lawsuit Prevention Strategies. Do not bury the policy in your handbooks. Train employees on the content of the policy. Train your management to treat employees consistently in the event that they determine employees are abusing social media. Inconsistent discipline may give rise to a claim of discrimination.

Finally, remind managers not to make promises or assurances that could amend the Company’s written policy. Once case, presently before the California Supreme Court, Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co, involves a sergeant on the Ontario, California SWAT team who sued his employer for violating his right to privacy because it monitored his sexual-text messaging (or “sexting”) from his department issued pager. Even though the department had a policy that expressly informed employees of its right to monitor their pagers, the sergeant’s supervisor promised him he would not monitor it. Appropriately training supervisory staff on the pitfalls of making these verbal assurances would have prevented this lawsuit.

Did I miss something? Is your policy consistent with my recommendations or do you have something to add? I’d love to hear your opinion.