Friday Quick Hits: Twitter Edition

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 6, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

It's Friday. I've got a short day today but a long list of things to do. I haven't posted in a couple days because of the holiday. So, I'm going keep this post to a reasonable length in an attempt to keep my sanity. And, keeping with the theme of short and sweet, I'm going to write about some news relating to Twitter. twitter icon.png

Let's start with Legal News.

A New York judge ordered Twitter to turn over three months' worth of an Occupy Wall Street protester's tweets. Initially, the protestor attempted to have the subpoena quashed but was unsuccessful, as the judge ruled that he did not have standing. Twitter intervened and sought to avoid having to turn the protester's tweets over to the State. The judge disagreed with Twitter's arguments and ruled that the company must comply with law enforcement's demand. But the judge did decide that he would review the tweets and determine which ones are relevant to the case before turning them over to the prosecution. Via WSJ Online.

Yesterday, a Florida judge set George Zimmerman's bail at $1 million, setting off a firestorm of death threats and calls to arms from Twitter users. Threats of violence violate the site's terms of use. The threatening tweeters have been deemed a "Twitter lynch mob." Via Examiner.com

Moving on to Sports.

Baltimore Ravens play-by-play announcer Gerry Sandusky has had a similar experience, being on the receiving end of hateful tweets sent by users who have confused him for the recently convicted former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry (with a "J") Sandusky. Via USA Today.

The ugly side of Twitter also showed itself during the final rounds of the Euro 2012, when fans tweeted racist comments directed at two English soccer players. Because the laws do not protect free speech in the same way they do in the U.S., the tweets are being investigated by police and the Football Association has called the comments "appalling and unacceptable." Via Fox Sports

Jameer Nelson, point guard for the Orlando Magic, reached a deal in principle with team management and announced the news via Twitter yesterday. Via the Washington Post.

Another athlete, Chad Ochocinco, had some Twitter announcements of his own but of a very different kind. Ochocinco made news when he invited a grieving widow from Franklin, Ohio, to his wedding after she sent him a message Twitter. Then, on his big day, he kept fans up to to date with a Twitter play-by-play, tweeting before, during, and after his nuptials. Via US Today.

We'll wrap up with the Entertainment news. (It is Friday, after all).

For those of you who may have been devastated by the news newlywed Alec Baldwin quit Twitter, you can breathe easy. Just two days after deactivating his account, Baldwin is back, tweeting under a different name. Although Baldwin has committed to a new marriage, he apparently can't commit to leading a Twitter-free life with his new bride. Via MSN.com.

Matthew McConaughey tweeted his own big news this week, when he used Twitter to announce that he and his wife are expecting their third child. Via the Washington Post.

Have a great weekend and we'll see you next week! If you're on Twitter, I'd love to hear from you. You can find me at @MollyDiBi or y clicking the "Follow Us" icon on the top right side of the blog's home page.

Poor Client Management and High Expectations

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 3, 2012In: Jerks at Work, Performance Evaluations

Email This Post | Print this Post

There has been a common element in each of the most difficult cases I've litigated--poor client management. What this means in a broad sense is a lawyer who fails to properly manage his client's expectations. This occurs for any number of reasons. For example, the lawyer may not have a good grasp of the case or of the applicable law and, for that reason, may have a severely inflated sense of the value of his client's claims.

The client is not always without fault, either. I've seen particularly manipulative or just plain bossy clients push their lawyer to do one thing or another and simply refuse to relent until they get their way. I usually see this exhibited during depositions. My opposing counsel brings his client to the deposition of my witness. Throughout the deposition, the client scribbles notes frantically, ripping pages out of a notebook and thrusting them across the table to his lawyer.

Inevitably, the lawyer relents and asks the question proposed by his client. And, inevitably, it's a flop. The question is out of context, irrelevant, and often poorly stated. It makes the lawyer look foolish and throws him off course.

A good lawyer knows better than to let this happen in the first place. When it is appropriate to bring a client to a deposition or court hearing, the good lawyer explains in advance what his role is and what the client's role is. If the client gets caught up in the moment and temporarily forgets those instructions, the lawyer simply takes a break at the next opportunity and tells the client to please keep her notes until the next break, when he will be glad to review them.

So what does client management have to do with today's workplace? In short, the transferrable lesson relates to managing expectations. Whether you are dealing with your direct supervisor, your assistant, or your own clients or customers, expectations are essential.

We are all responsible for setting our own rules and then abiding by them consistently. If you give your cell phone number to clients and encourage them to call you "anytime," don't be short with them when they do. Similarly, if you allow employees to "tease" a coworker because of his accent, don't be surprised when the "teasing" spreads to gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

It is the responsibility of every manager to set the expectations for employee behavior. These expectations are set in part by example and in part by responding immediately and consistently to every failure to meet those expectations.

Workplace Email: The Devil Made Me Do It

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn July 2, 2012In: Jerks at Work, Resources, Tech Tips

Email This Post | Print this Post

People manage email in different ways. Some of us use our Inbox as a task list, filing everything that does not need attention.  Others use their Inbox as a storage site for any email that they may ever want to refer to again. You can imagine which group is better liked by IT departments across the globe.

We also have different standards for what is and is not acceptable from a usage or style perspective.  Emails that disregard sentence capitalization, for example, opting to use only lower-case letters, may drive some readers bonkers. Others may be more troubled by email senders who elect to use an atrocious and distracting “stationery,” which translates roughly to a pale beige background with fuzzy gray dots arranged in a grid pattern on which it is impossible to read any text smaller than 24 pts in bold font.

But what about the content of our emails?  There are tricky aspects of that, too, as many of us are all too well aware. Why is it that readers so often misinterpret messages as having a far more sinister or simply unfriendly intent?

Scott McDowell suggests some reasons in his post, Email Etiquette II: Why Emoticons (And Emotional Cues) Work.  I’ve been seeing a lot of articles like this lately and am thoroughly convinced of the accuracy of their premise. In short, despite our attempts to sound conversational in email correspondence, the electronic nature of the exchange prevents an actual conversation from occurring.  Without the chance to translate body language, intonation, and facial expressions, as we do so naturally during in –person conversations, we’re left to our own imaginations when putting emotions to the text we see on the screen.

And, as the post explains, if an email’s content is neutral (as many of us aim to achieve in our day-to-day business correspondence), he reader is more likely to assume that the tone is negative.  This theory of “negativity bias,” which is credited to Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, also holds that, when the email’s tone is positive, the reader interprets the tone as neutral, as Mike Maslanka previously explained. 

So what’s a well-intended email author to do? smiley face icon

McDowell suggests an increased use emoticons.  Admittedly, I use a lot of smiley faces in my casual correspondence. I know, I know, it’s not exactly the most lawyerly way to write an email but it does the trick.  When used properly, the winking smiley face can lighten the tone of an otherwise serious-sounding sentence.  But I don’t imagine that I ‘d use a smiley face or even a winking smiley in an email to a new client with whom I don’t already have a rapport or who doesn’t already know smiley-type personality. 

Perhaps there’s an app waiting to be developed here—emoticons for the business environment. A little bow-tie wearing smiley face, maybe? Or maybe the smiley face could don a pair of wire-rimmed glasses, thus appearing both smart and friendly.

Until then, I’ll offer my own humble suggestion—not to to senders but to recipients. If you receive an email from a coworker or other person you generally consider to be on your side of the shooting range, and you have a moment of doubt about the tone or intention behind an email you receive, make an effort to start from the assumption that it’s positive or, at the very least, neutral. In other words, be consciously careful to avoid assuming that guy or girl down the hall has suddenly switched sides and is now a covert agent operating for the enemy.

U.S.S.C. to Hear FLSA Appeal of "Terrible" 3d Cir. Decision

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 29, 2012In: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Email This Post | Print this Post

The Internet is buzzing with discussions of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act today. Many, many lawyers far better versed than I are typing their little hearts out as I write this post and I'm happy to leave the analysis in their capable hands. Instead, I'm writing about another important decision announced earlier this week.

On Monday, the Court announced that it had granted certiorari to hear the appeal of a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Smyczyk, was filed as an FLSA collective action. Before any other plaintiffs joined the suit, the defendant tendered an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and argued that its offer of full relief had mooted the claim of the single named plaintiff. The district court agreed and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding that defendant-employers could not use Rule 68 to avoid liability in a collective-action claim. In so finding, the Third Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit, which had issued a similar decision only a couple of weeks earlier in Pitts v. Terrible Herst, Inc. I (respectfully) dubbed them the "Terrible Decisions" and wrote a fairly lengthy post about why I think the cases rely on flawed logic and shaky legal analysis.

Most troubling aspect of the Third Circuit's decision from an employer's perspective is that it can make it virtually impossible to resolve an FLSA collective action until after a class has been certified and notice sent to putative class members. By then, of course, many employers have expended a tremendous amount of money on fees to defend the case. And the result will be unchanged even if the employer concedes liability and agrees to pay the plaintiff the full amount of his claim, plus liquidated damages, plus fees! Payment of the full amount potentially recoverable by the plaintiff will not end the case, according to the Third Circuit's decision.

Thus, employers would have no choice but to continue to litigate even after full payment has been tendered. Sounds a bit like extortion, wouldn't you say?

For context, you may want to read more about the Third Circuit's decision in my previous post, 3d Cir. Agrees With "Terrible" Decision, or my equally critical commentary about the Pitts decision. Then, if you're a die-hard like me, you can download the certiorari briefs on the SCOTUS Blog. And, while you're there, maybe you'll be tempted to read what some of those brilliant minds have to say about the Court's health-care ruling. Or, if you're like me, you could just peruse the incredibly cleverly worded titles.

Password-Privacy Bill Approved by N.J. Assembly

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 26, 2012In: Hiring, Privacy In the Workplace, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

The New Jersey Assembly passed that State's version of a password-privacy law yesterday by a vote of 77-0. The Bill, AB 2878, is now sent to the State's Senate, reports NJ.com. Much like the Delaware Workplace Privacy Act, which currently is pending in the Delaware House of Representatives, the New Jersey Bill has some significant flaws.

Like Delaware's Bill, and similar Bills pending in States across the country, the New Jersey Act is being promoted as a "password-privacy" law, intended to prevent employers from asking employees and applicants for their passwords in order to access the individual's social-networking site, such as Facebook or Twitter. However, as I have written about the Delaware Bill, the proposed law goes much farther than that.

In the case of New Jersey's Bill, employers would be prohibited from asking not only for an individual's password, but also for his or her user name and even whether the individual even has a social-networking site in the first place. Even more bizarre is the provision of the law that would prohibit an employer from requiring whether an employee or applicant to provide the employer with "access" to the individual's social-networking site "in any way." It is not clear whether this provision would prohibit a supervisor from sending a Facebook friend request or an invitation to connect via LinkedIn.

This lawmaking trend continues to make the news, despite the continued absence of any stories of employers who engage in the practice. Maryland was the first State to sign a similar law into effect. Illinois was the second State to pass a similar law, which now awaits the Governor's signature. You are welcome to join me for a free webinar on the topic, sponsored by the Employment Law Alliance, on Thursday, July 12.

Free Webinar: Employers' Demands to See Facebook Pages

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 25, 2012In: Seminars

Email This Post | Print this Post

Can employers demand to see an employee's or applicant's social-networking profile? To learn the answer to that and related questions, I hope you will join us for a free 90-minute webinar on Thursday, July 12, from 3-4:30 p.m. EDT.

About the Webinar

Recent press reports indicate that many employers are beginning to require job applicants to disclose their login information and passwords in order to access Facebook accounts and other private information contained in various forms of social media. They are doing this in large part out of frustration due to resume fraud, an inability to obtain meaningful references, and concerns over allegations of negligent hiring. These practices raise a number of significant privacy concerns and legal issues. This session will provide a national perspective on issues including:

  • Why employers are seeking to obtain this information
  • A review of current federal and state laws triggered by these practices
  • An overview of proposed federal legislation and state laws being considered around the country
  • How this practice may affect your corporate culture and ability to recruit the best and brightest
  • Alternative methods for obtaining meaningful applicant information

Speakers

This timely webinar is sponsored by Employment Law Alliance, the world's largest network of employer's lawyers, with members in all 50 states and 140 countries.  Young Conaway is a proud long-time member of the ELA.  I'm thrilled to be presenting on this topic again with Steve Hirschfeld, CEO of the ELA and Partner, Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, San Francisco, CA.   Completing the line-up will be Angela Rud of Gray Plant Mooty, Minneapolis, MN, and Kara E. Shea, of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC, Nashville, TN.

Registration

Because of our affiliation with the ELA, we are able to offer this webinar to blog readers at no cost.  To register, visit the webinar's page on the ELA website and enter "Young Conaway" as the referring law firm. 

Feel free to share this invitation with as many of your colleagues as you want.  Since registration is per site, only one person needs to register if you will be in the same room listening together.  If you will be in different offices or locations, each person will need to register.  You will listen to the webinar and view the power point slides via your computer; please be sure you are able to do that (instructions for downloading the meeting software will be included in your registration confirmation).  A phone option will be available, but you will need to cover any related charges.

Recap

I hope you'll be able to join us on Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern for what is sure to be an informative webinar on a timely and important topic.

Taking the Mystery Out of Bad Hiring Practices

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 25, 2012In: Age (ADEA), Gender (Title VII), Harassment, Hiring, Interviewing, Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Want some free anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training? Well, have I got a deal for you! Mystery Diners is a reality show on the Food Network. The show's concept involves a father-daughter team who pretend to be employees and/or customers at a target restaurant in order to help the owner uncover the "leaks in the dam" so to speak.

An episode that aired last week, called, "Managing Disaster," could be used as a workplace best-practices training video. In short, you could use the video to train employees that any of the conduct by the restaurant's manager should be considered prohibited conduct in your workplace.

Yes, it really was that bad. And I mean bad. Let me take a moment to run through just a few examples of conduct that occurred during the hiring process.

Candidate #1: Sarah the "Old Lady"

Two women are sent into the restaurant to interview for a waitress position. One of the women is Sarah, who is in her mid-30s and has lots of waitressing experience. She interviewed with the bad-guy-manager (we'll call him "Manager," despite he did anything but manage the employees).

During the interview, he asked her how old she was. Yes, you read that correctly. When she answered "I'm 35," Manager nearly fell out of his seat. He quickly sent her on her way and told her he'd be in touch. After she was out the door, he ran over to the bar, where he told the bartender that Sarah "was like, in her 30s--she'd be like a mother in here!!"

Candidate #2: Destiney In a Short Skirt
The second candidate was Destiney, the daughter of the father-daughter team, who I'd guess to be maybe 21 years old. Destiney was young and cute and wore a short skirt to herinterview. As if Manager hadn't already shown his true colors during Sarah's interview, he took it to an entirely new level with Destiney. By the end of the "interview," though, you can be sure that Destiney had been offered the job.

For starters, he made her sit on a couch for the interview, which was not only way too informal but also clearly uncomfortable for Destiney in light of her attire. When Destiney admitted that she had no real experience to speak of, Manager assured her that experience was not important--"as long as you're cute."

Ethical Standards Lower than a Short Skirt

Seeing that he couldn't ask her about anything relevant to the duties of the job, I guess it's natural that Manager turned to other topics. In this case, Manager chose "partying," and began a series of questions about Destiney's after-hour activities, such as whether she liked to "party" and whether she liked to go clubbing, which "they" (presumably, Manager and his creepy friends), "did all of the time."

The low point of the "interview" came when Manager touched Destiney's knee as he sat way too close to her on the low-to-the-ground couch and talked about low-life topics like "partying" and assuring her that his standards for hiring were as low as his morals. What a dirt bag. And you can imagine what the father, who sat in a trailer watching the live video stream with the restaurant's owner, must have thought as he saw Manager Creepy touch Daughter Destiney's bare knee. Nice.

When Busted, Blame Others
Folks, the take-aways from this episode are, admittedly, obvious to most of us. They weren't, apparently, as obvious to Manager Creepy, who was shocked and appalled that the owner had secretly videotaped these antics. And, in a demonstration of some of the best blame-shifting skills I've perhaps ever seen, Manager Creepy, furious about the intrusion, turned the entire situation around and accused the owner of being an unsupportive boss.

Be sure to catch the show for some free anti-harassment-and-discrimination training.

Delaware’s Workplace Privacy Act Lives to See Another Day

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 21, 2012In: Delaware Specific, Legislative Update, Privacy In the Workplace, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware’s version of the “password-privacy” laws currently pending in state legislatures across the country lives to see another day.  H.B. 308, titled the “Workplace Privacy Act,” was released from Committee last month and made it to the House a few weeks ago. It’s slowly been making its way to the top of the agenda and closer to a vote by the House of Representatives.

Last week, I presented on social media at the monthly meeting of Delaware SHRM and, no surprise, the proposed law was a topic on the agenda.  I discussed my concerns with the law as drafted—specifically, the prohibition on an employer asking an employee to show the employer his or her social-networking site for purposes of a legitimate workplace investigation.  (For a more detailed discussion of the potential implications, see my post about a hypothetical allegation and investigation in the education setting). 

After the SHRM meeting, I was approached by several members about what steps should be taken to address the flaws in the legislation as drafted.  I worked with Delaware SHRM to draft a letter for members to submit to their State Representatives about the concerns employers have with H.B. 308.  The letter went out today.

Perhaps as a matter of sheer coincidence, perhaps not, H.B. 308 was amended yet again today. The most critical provision for employers is Section (e) which contains the “permitted acts” for employers. Of most interest in this amendment is the new version of Section (e)(5), which was pitched as the “solution” to the concerns I’ve been raising.  The section, unfortunately, contains several sentences that don’t particularly belong together, which makes it even more confusing.  I’ll do my best to unravel the mystery one sentence at a time.

This Act shall not prohibit any employer from barring employees from accessing social networking sites while performing work for the employer.

Good gracious, let’s hope not!  Of course an employer is allowed to prohibit its employees from using its equipment and/or technology to engage in social networking or anything else unrelated to work during working time.

Employers are permitted to access electronic communication devices which are the property of the employer for the purpose of investigating employee wrongdoing, or otherwise serving the employer’s business purposes.

Again, I think this is pretty obvious, though maybe less so than the previous sentence. In short, it says that an employer is allowed to “access” the smartphones, laptops, tablets, etc., that they provide to employees. In other words, the company can access its own property. 

Notably, though, the Bill purports that an employer may do so lawfully only for the “purpose of investigating employee wrongdoing” or “otherwise serving the employer’s business purposes.”  Supposedly, a charitable purpose or at the request of the employee would not be considered a “permitted act” under the amended Bill.

Where an employer has credible information indicating imminent workplace violence, the employer may question the subject employee as to alleged social network site postings.

Try to not to laugh—it’s not funny.  According to this sentence, in the event there is a credible threat of imminent workplace violence, the employer may “question” a “subject employee” (whoever that is), about his or her social-network-site postings.  Wow.  That’s it? 

Employers are also permitted to access an employee’s social networking site profile or account which is public and non-restricted.

And, finally, an employer is permitted to look at publicly available information that is posted online.  Well, yes.  Of course employers are allowed to look at the Internet and the public information posted online. 

It’s pretty clear to me that this “amendment” may constitute a changed version of the Bill but not an improved version and certainly not the answer to the problems that I’ve discussed previously. 

If you are not a SHRM member but want your voice to be heard on this legislation, I’ve uploaded a modified version of the SHRM letter, which I would encourage you to use as a template for your own letter.  But act soon, there are just two sessions left before the summer recess and the Bill could be voted on as early as tomorrow.

The NLRB's New Webpage Targets Your Employees

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 19, 2012In: Union and Labor Issues

Email This Post | Print this Post

Twitter was atwitter yesterday and today with news of the NLRB's new webpage, titled Protected Concerted Activity. The introductory text on the page states:

The law we enforce gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions or fix job-related problems, even if they aren't in a union. If employees are fired, suspended, or otherwise penalized for taking part in protected group activity, the National Labor Relations Board will fight to restore what was unlawfully taken away.
knight.gif Talk about some great marketing! It seems pretty clear that the message is targeted to non-unionized employees. It's also evident that the NLRB is attempting to promote itself as the defender of all things wrong in the workplace. The image of NLRB as warrior may be a bit more romantic than the image that comes to my mind but c'est la vie.

This newest online marketing campaign should not come as a surprise. The Board's efforts to require employers to post similar information in the workplace have been stymied by the courts, so why wouldn't it take a different avenue? And Internet-based marketing is nothing new to the Board; you may recall my previous post about the love affair between unions and social media.

To say that the NLRB is being proactive about spreading its message to the non-unionized workplace is, perhaps, a bit of an understatement. Employers should be aware of these efforts but should not turn and run. To do so would be to admit defeat and it's far too soon for that! Remember, so far, the efforts have been unsuccessful--unionized employees make up just 7 percent of the private-sector.

Performance Evaluations: Let's Talk About It

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 19, 2012In: Performance Evaluations

Email This Post | Print this Post

Just how useful are traditional performance evaluations? According to a recent study by SHRM and Globoforce, not very. 45% of the HR professionals surveyed reported that performance reviews are not an accurate appraisal of employees' performance. And 42% don't believe that employees are given rewards commensurate with their performance.

Is anyone really surprised by these statistics? I mean, when was the last time you heard a group of HR professionals, managers, or even employees, cheer enthusiastically about the value of the performance review?

Okay, after you've stopped laughing hysterically at the thought, consider the suggestion of Globoforce CEO Eric Mosely in his post on the Harvard Business Review Blog. Mosely's idea is to "crowdsource" your organization's next performance reviews. In other words, solicit regular feedback from everyone who works with employee being reviewed. Don't limit your sources to only the employee's manager or direct supervisor. And don't wait until the end of the year and expect the reviewer to have sudden recall of the past 12 months.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea, frankly, but also am not entirely opposed to it. How could I be opposed to an improved performance-evaluation system? After all, I, too, am an employee and I, too, suffer through the annual review process. But crowdsourcing?

One concern I would have is the potential karma-inducing effect. If I know that my annual review is dependent on ongoing commentary made by coworkers, I wonder if I wouldn't, consciously or subconsciously, dole out extra servings of positive commentary to my own coworkers in the hope that they would feel the love and pass it right back to me. Would we, at the end of the day just be patting one another on the back as a defensive mechanism?

How can the idea be improved? I do have one suggestion--remove the "independent" factor. Instead of having coworkers give their comments independent from and without the input of others, who may also be submitting feedback. Instead, what if the commenters were required, at least once a year, to meet and discuss the comments they've given or intend to give.

At least in the legal profession, my colleagues and I have no problem battling it out to defend our positions. If reasonable minds and voices can prevail, such a discussion may give commenters a more accurate perspective with which to frame their comments prior to their submission.

I can imagine that this technique would be particularly beneficial where an instance of poor performance was an isolated instance. If the commenter was able to hear about positive performance examples, it may help put the negative experience into context. Or, if a commenter has unreasonably high expectations, hearing others discussing their own standards may, again, provide some needed context.

At the end of the day, as I've previously written, it's hard to write a good performance evaluation. Any effort to improve a defunct system is a positive step in the right direction. Even if it doesn't remove all of the flaws, forward is always better, so I'd encourage employers to try it and see whether it works for their particular workforce.

Social-Media Screening Company Runs Afoul of FCRA

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 17, 2012In: Background Checks, Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employers' use of social media as part of the hiring process continues to make the news. Although much has been made of the nuances of the idea, cyber-screening can be performed lawfully and with positive results--when it's done properly. When it's not, though, there can be lots of significant consequences.

To avoid the risks associated with cyber-screening (or to combat a fear of the unknown, perhaps), some employers have turned the task to outside vendors. Instead of performing a Google search on a candidate as part of the in-house screening process, some employers are paying a third party to conduct the search as part of the background check.

I recognize that many companies feel that this reduces the risk that they'll be sued for failure to hire. But the idea of outsourcing this process seems to significantly reduce the benefits. Employers like cyber-screening, in part, anyway, because it's free and gives immediate results. Outsourced screenings cost money and take time.

And there's another downside to using a vendor for this process. Once you involve a third party in the background-check process, you are obligated to comply with the very specific requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). If you use a vendor to perform background checks of any kind, you're already familiar with these requirements. You also already know how important it is that you use a reputable vendor who will meet all of its obligations under the FCRA.

So maybe that's why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is so ticked off at Spokeo, one of the handful of new businesses that market themselves as a social-media-search provider. The FTC's complaint alleged that the company failed to follow the FCRA's requirements when conducting its social-media searches on behalf of employers. The complaint also alleged that Spokeo's managers encouraged employees to post online reviews of the company in violation of the FTC's endorsement guidelines, reports Information Week.

Spokeo has agreed to settle the lawsuit but it's going to cost 'em. The consent order that will resolve the suit, if approved, would require Spokeo to pay an $800,000 civil penalty and remain under Court supervision for 20 years.

This is quite a jump from the FTC's recent approval of a different social-media screening company. So which is it--can employers outsource these searches safely . . . or not? What's the lesson here for employers? Simply put--seek qualified legal counsel to help you ensure that your hiring practices comply with the law. Hiring is a critical component of the employment process and it is a worthwhile investment to get it right the first time around.

For more about the FTC's endorsement guidelines, a critical component of any social-media policy, see:
Another Reason Employers Need a Social-Media Policy: New FTC Regulations
Turns Out FTC Actually Expects You to Follow Its Rules
FTC Is Not Amused by Employees' PDA for Their Employees

A Water Main Break, a Creek, and Other Work-From-Home Distractions

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 15, 2012In: Telecommuting

Email This Post | Print this Post

I'm working from home today but not by choice. Our office is quasi-closed today as a result a water main break just a few blocks away from our building in Wilmington, as shown in the video below by 6abc.

Of course, just because I can't go to the office to work doesn't mean I get to take the day off--the work still must be done. In the era of mobile computing and the paperless office, this does not present much of a technological challenge. I have ready access to everything I would have access to if I were sitting at my desk. Well, everything but my multiple-monitor computer set-up, I suppose.

But I digress. Which brings me back to my original point.

Working at home is hard. For me, anyway. I am too easily distracted. By the cat, who is as cute as can be and who just loves it when he's got a lap to sit in, pesky laptop be damned. By the bonsai tree that could use a meticulous pruning. By my car, which is calling to me at this very moment, asking that I give her a nice wash, followed by a leisurely drive with the top down.

Blue Heron


By the view from my deck of the Brandywine Creek, which is as beautiful and serene as one might imagine a lazy creek to be on a clear day in June. Or the Great Blue Heron who, and I am not making this up, is perched on a rock, looking for lunch, at this very moment.


Or the rose garden at the end of my street, which is in full bloom and beautiful beyond belief.


I live in a park, people! It's not my fault that I'm surrounded by all of these incredible distractions! Blame Mother Nature!


Josephine Rose Garden


But, again, I digress. The point that I am trying to get around to making is that, as a general rule, working from home really doesn't work for me. At my desk, I'm a disciplined, focused, work-generating fool of a task-master. But at home, I find that I mostly just walk in circles.


Maybe I'll read some news articles to help me find the working-from-home sweet spot. For example, the Top 10 Mistakes Everyone Makes When Working From Home on Forbes.com. Or How to Work From Home Without Losing Your Mind (or Your Job) by Ask a Manager's Alison Green at US News' On Careers blog. According to Attorney Marketing blog, 2% of lawyers work from home all of the time. And good for them--there are plenty of benefits of telecommuting for those who have the self-control to stay on task.

Or maybe I'll just get back to work. Wish me luck and have a great Friday, wherever you may be today!

Ethical Lawyer Blogging in Virginia

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 14, 2012In: Purely Legal

Email This Post | Print this Post

A three-judge panel in Virginia has issued its decision in an important case for lawyers who blog or who are thinking of starting a blog. The case involved the appeal of a ruling by Virginia State Bar Association's disciplinary committee about a blog written by Virginia lawyer Horace Hunter. The committee originally pursued a complaint against Mr. Hunter when he refused to include the exact disclaimer required by the Bar Association.

I was lucky enough to appear on an all-star panel of speakers, including Mr. Hunter, a few months ago, when we presented a CLE hosted by the ABA, titled, Is Your Legal Blog Compliant? To learn more about the specific facts leading to the complaint, I'd strongly recommend the episode of the Legal Talk Network podcast, Lawyer 2 Lawyer, on which Mr. Hunter was a guest.

There were two issues before the panel. First, whether Mr. Hunter had breached his duty of confidentiality pursuant to Rule 1.6 by writing about his clients' cases on his blog. The information contained in the blog posts was publicly available. The panel overturned the finding of misconduct by the State Bar's disciplinary committee.

Second, the panel was presented with the question of whether Mr. Hunter could be required by the State Bar to include a disclaimer on his blog. The panel upheld the committee's determination that a disclaimer was required in accordance with the attorney advertising rules set forth in Rules 7.1 and 7.2. Specifically, the disclaimer must state that results may vary from case to case, depending on the facts.

All lawyers--even those who do not blog--should look more closely at this decision and at the facts and arguments leading to this point. Mr. Hunter's arguments regarding the First Amendment implications of attorney advertising, particularly in the context of legal blogs.

See also, VA Lawyers' Weekly; Washington Post's Capital Business Blog; and Above The Law.

Guns In the Workplace: Implications of Open-Carry Laws

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 12, 2012In: Workplace Violence

Email This Post | Print this Post

Prof. Stephen Bainbridge makes a great argument against state laws that permit employees to store guns in their cars. In his post, Guns vs. At-Will Employment, Prof. Bainbridge discusses a recent decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court interpreting that state's gun laws. In its opinion, the Court found that an employee who was fired for having a handgun in his car (for which he had proper license), could bring a wrongful-termination suit against his employer, the University of Kentucky. Prof. Bainbridge concludes that these state laws constitute a significant and problematic exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

On McAfee & Taft's EmployerLinc blog, Charlie Plumb recently wrote about a new law in Oklahoma that raises similar issues. "Concealed-carry laws" also took effect last year in Wisconsin and Texas.


Employers, Are Your Employees Minding Their Own Business?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn June 11, 2012In: Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employees send a lot of emails at work. Goodness knows, the emails in my inbox never seems to stop piling up. And I think we can all agree that emails we send at work aren't always work related. So what do we talk about when our emails are not strictly business?

A pair of Georgia Tech researchers have published their take on the answer--but you may not want to know what they found. According to Tanu Mitra and Eric Gilbert, in their paper, "Have You Heard? How Gossip Flows Through Workplace Email" (PDF), found that more than 1 in every 7 emails sent at work contains workplace gossip.

The study evaluated more than 500,000 emails sent by Enron employees and looked for The authors define email "gossip" as an email in which an employee is mentioned in the body of the text but not included as a recipient. The study has lots of juicy findings:

1. Who Engages In Email Gossip?
Workplace gossip is common at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. [No big shock here.] Employees are most likely to gossip with their peers and employees at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy are responsible for a large portion of email gossip.

2. What Types of Emails Include Gossip?
The study concludes that gossip appeared as often in personal exchanges as it did in formal business communications. Emails that are targeted to a smaller audience are more likely to contain gossip.

3. How Gossip-y is the Gossip?
Negative gossip appeared in emails 2.7 times more often than positive gossip. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is not a good finding for employers. If true, it would mean that, not only are employees wasting lots of time with gossiping emails but that they're probably doing some real harm to workplace morale. Employers, how much are you spending to pay employees to stir the pot? Nobody likes a pot stirrer.

4. And, a random but fascinating finding:
Mid-level in-house lawyers contribute the second-highest amount of downward-flowing gossip. Yikes! I won't even attempt to rationalize this finding. I'd say that I will take a harder look at my own practices but I never send non-work-related emails during working time. [Particularly when my boss may be reading this post!]

It's a fascinating subject matter and an equally fascinating paper.
[H/T Workplace Diva]