Delaware Employment Law Blog

In a reminder to Delaware employers that what you say can come back to bite you, the Delaware Supreme Court reinstated a Superior Court jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff, after the trial court had determined that his claim failed as a matter of law. The plaintiff, Donald Harmon, had been the Presiding Judge of the Delaware Harness Racing Commission, and was fired as a result of an allegation that he had changed a judging sheet for a race, as a favor to the horse's owner. Harmon was charged with crimes and was suspended without pay pending the outcome of the criminal case.

He asked another employee to find out from the Racing Commission whether he would be reinstated if he was acquitted on the criminal charges. The employee testified that he put that question to the Commissioners and they "looked at each other and then said [Harmon] would be reinstated." The Commission later decided not to reinstate Harmon and he sued, obtaining an award of $102,273 after a 5 day jury trial. The trial court overturned the verdict and Harmon appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

In essence, promissory estoppel in the employment context means that the employer has made a representation to an employee that the employee reasonably relied on to his or her detriment. While that theory can apply to private employers, the general rule in the public sector, as asserted by the Racing Commission in this case, is that "the state is not estopped in the exercise of its governmental functions by the acts of its officers."

Relying on two rather hoary school-district cases, the Delaware Supreme Court recognized that there is "an exception to the general rule in the employment context." In, Keating v. Bd. of Educ. of the Appoquinimink Sch. Dist., and Crisco v. Bd. of Educ. of the Indian River Sch. Dist., the court rejected the claim that promissory estoppel does not apply to a "creature of the State."

The Takeaway

What is striking about all three cases is the casual manner in which the employers' representatives acted. If a clear, written statement had existed in Keating that it was only the decision of the Board that determined who would be rehired, and in Crisco that persons with standard certificates would have preference under the RIF policy, and if the Racing Commission had, instead of "looking at each other," made it clear that it was not committing to rehiring Harmon without a more formal investigation, the outcome almost surely would have been different.

Harmon v. State of Delaware, (PDF), No 676, 2011 (Del. Feb. 15, 2013).

Delaware experienced a tragedy yesterday at the New Castle County courthouse. As reported by ABCNews.com, a man embroiled in a custody dispute entered the courthouse lobby this morning shortly after 8 a.m. and opened fire, fatally wounding two women and injuring two Capital Police officers. The shooter exchanged gunfire with the officers and died at the scene.

The courthouse is just a few blocks away, on the same street as our firm's offices. Reports of the story spread quickly but were not confirmed until this afternoon. The courthouse was evacuated and will be closed tomorrow.

Gun violence certainly has been on the minds of many of us in the past several months. The dialogue has even extended to the topic of guns in the workplace. For example, despite the devastating events of the recent past, some state legislatures are considering legislation that would permit employees to keep loaded firearms in their vehicles, even in the employer's parking lot.

According to this post at Fox Rothschild's Employment Discrimination Report, 20 states have adopted a "parking-lot" law. Al Vreeling offers his thoughts on Alabama's recently proposed law in Guns Do Not Belong In the Workplace, at HR Hero.

Oklahoma's "open-carry" law takes a different approach and, as I understand it, provides an exception for employers, preserving their right to manage the workplace with the policies of their choosing. For those who are interested, our friends at McAffee Taft are hosting a free webinar, Guns or No Guns--Weighing Workplace Weapons Policies, on this issue on February 21.

The Delaware Supreme Court started the New Year with a resolution of sorts for lawyers. In a decision issued on January 2, 2013, the Court instructed that, if counsel agrees to alter a deadline in the trial court's scheduling order, all remaining deadlines will be rendered inapplicable:

Henceforth, parties who ignore or extend scheduling deadlines without promptly consulting the trial court will do so at their own risk. In other words, any party that grants an informal extension to opposing counsel will be precluded from seeking relief from the court with respect to any deadlines in the scheduling order.

The Court also stressed the priority of avoiding any changes that would affect the trial date:

. . . [I]f the trial court is asked to extend any deadlines in the scheduling order, the extension should not alter the trial date. Counsel may face a compressed time period to complete discovery, or the filing of dispositive motions, but the most important aspect of the scheduling order--the trial date--will be preserved.

And, the Court warned, where the trial court does elect to postpone the trial date, the parties should expect that their new date will be after "all other trials already scheduled on the court's docket." In other words, there's no butting in line.

The Court's admonition is a welcome one. All too often, counsel wants to extend a deadline that truly should not be extended. There seems to be a belief by some practitioners that all requests or extension must be granted. This simply is not true. In fact, a lawyer may not agree to extend a deadline that would detrimentally affect his client's case.

Moreover, the parties negotiate the scheduling order--it is not a set of arbitrary deadlines forced upon them by the court. It is a set of obligations created entirely by agreement. Thus, I tend to have a fairly low tolerance for the opposing counsel who cries that he just couldn't meet the deadlines and whines that I'm such a monster for not agreeing to extend them. In my book, a deal's a deal and there's a lot to be said for keeping your promises.

Christian v. Counseling Resource Assocs., Inc., C.A. 460, 2011 (Del. Jan. 2, 2013).

I took a week off of blogging last week in a largely unsuccessful attempt at vacation. Although my vacation plans did not turn out quite as I'd expected, I did manage to tear myself away from the computer, my smartphone, Twitter, and the Internet as a whole for three entire days. For me, this is no small feat.

The draws of the digital world are many. For me, the strongest pull is the thought of a client trying to reach me. I'm in the service business, after all. So it's my business to make sure my clients are getting the services they need, when they need it.

My three-day reprieve was a reasonable success. I was able to see a few sights, take a few good pictures, and even managed to make some time for a little retail therapy. And, despite my digital absence, no client suffered as a result.

Maintaining a "work-life balance" (whatever that is), has never been my strong suit. But my long weekend has given me a bit of perspective. It's good to get some fresh air once in a while. It's good to get away from the daily grind every so often. And it's really good not to be tied to the iPhone 24-7.

Now, all that being said, I'll finally get to the point of this post. During my brief respite, I learned that this blog was voted into the top spot in the Labor & Employment category of ABA Journal's Top 100 Blawgs. Lest you think that I was anything other than extremely grateful for your votes, I thought it best to let you know why my thanks have been somewhat delayed.

Delayed or not, my thanks are sincere. I've said it before but I'll say it again--thank you for your support.

For those of you who visit the blog irregularly, consider subscribing via email, which you can do by entering your email address in the box at the top right side of this page. That way, you'll get the day's post delivered before lunch. Seems that email has its advantages after all.

We deal with difficult people everywhere, really. At work, we may have to deal with difficult people as co-workers, as customers, as vendors, and as bosses, just to name a few.
Difficult people come in all shapes and sizes. The street bully is the difficult person who are yells and throws insults to get his or her way. The silent killer uses passive-aggressive tactics to wage wars based on sabotage. In today's post, though, I have in mind the rough and rude bully type--the difficult person who pushes his or her way around like a bull in a china store and expects everyone to jump into action at his or her command.

The ABA Journal recently asked its readers how they deal with difficult people of a particularly difficult variety--opposing counsel in litigation. As a general rule, I have had very positive relationships with opposing counsel. In fact, many of my opposing counsel have become very good friends of mine, whose friendship I value tremendously. Particularly in Delaware, where we value civility and professionalism as a foundation of the practice of law, my interactions with the lawyer on the other side of the table is a positive one more often than not.

That said, there certainly have been times when I have had to deal with a lawyer on the other side who, it seems to me, insists on being unreasonable or who routinely uses bully tactics in an effort to get his or her way. These interactions trouble me a great deal and, unfortunately, tend to change the way the case is litigated. Perhaps it is because this happens so infrequently (thank goodness), that I have given these bullies a good deal of thought once the interaction or case is over.

There are a few mantras that I do my best to remember when getting screamed at by another lawyer or having to deal with a lawyer who uses threats as strategy. I share them here both as a reminder to myself and in the hopes that readers may be able to put them to use in their time of need.

Mean people are scared people.
If my opposing counsel is yelling at me, I know he's scared of something I've said or he thinks I am going to say. Either I have an actual advantage or he thinks I do. I'm happy to have either.

A lawyer who can't control his temper can't control his case.
If my opposing counsel spends hours writing lengthy letters and multiple emails filled with ridicule and scathing commentary, he is not spending his time preparing his case, reviewing the facts, or coming up with new legal arguments and strategy. A distracted opponent is fine by me.

Sticks 'n stones may break my bones (and even hurt my feelings), but they won't affect my client's case.
At the end of the case, nasty comments and raised voices are irrelevant. The outcome of the case--whether by settlement, by verdict, or by judicial decision--will not include a scorecard of baseless accusations made or declare a winner for worst-mannered, most uncivil lawyer. The case will be decided on the application of the law to facts, as argued by the more effective lawyer, so it's best not to focus on anything else.

So, turning back to the question posed by the ABA Journal, "how do you deal with rude opposing counsel?" My answer is easy. I win.

Is an employee who is in the country illegally a covered "employee" under the Workers' Compensation laws? That was the question of first impression presented to the Delaware Superior Court in Del. Valley Field Servs. v. Ramirez, (PDF) No. 12A-01-007-JOH (Sep. 13, 2012). The court concluded that the answer is "yes," and ordered that the former employee, who has since been deported to Honduras, is eligible to receive benefits under Delaware's workers-compensation statute.

Facts
The employee, Saul Melgar Ramirez, was hired in April 2010 as an "independent contractor'"--which the term the court uses to say that Ramirez was paid in cash. In January 2011, he was converted to a regular employee and added to the payroll. When told by his boss that he would need a Social Security number for his I-9 documentation, Ramirez bought a fake SSN card for $180. In February, the payroll service informed the employer that the number was false. Ramirez was deported in March.

In late January, shortly after he was converted to employee status, Ramirez fell down six steps and landed on his back. The company's president, who witnessed the fall, reported the accident to the company's workers' compensation carrier and made arrangements for Ramirez to get medical treatment. The treating physician determined that Ramirez was totally disabled.

Issues
The Industrial Board awarded benefits to Ramirez. (See Cassandra Robert's cleverly named post about the Board's decision, The Dearly Deported--Illegal Alien Status Does Not Work a Forfeiture in Delaware). The employer appealed to the Delaware Superior Court, where it made several arguments, including:

• the employee's "fraudulent inducement" in obtaining the job disqualified him from receiving benefits;
• because, pursuant to the federal immigration laws, Ramirez could not be lawfully hired, those laws preempted the State's workers' compensation laws; and
• the employee's exclusion from the U.S. was the equivalent of being incarcerated, which would result in the suspension of benefits.

Nuts and Bolts
Regular readers may be mildly surprised to read that I actually side with the employee in this case. Not so much because of complicated legal reasons but more because of the basic facts. The employer hired Ramirez. The basic employment relationship involves the performance of services by the employee and the provision of certain compensation and benefits by the employer in return. One of those benefits is workers' compensation insurance.

Here, there is no dispute that Ramirez performed the services for which he was hired. Thus, the employer received the bargained-for benefit of the employment relationship. Ramirez, in return, was entitled to receive, in exchange, the benefits for which he had bargained, including wages for work performed and workers' compensation insurance.

There is no dispute that Ramirez was injured during the course and scope of his employment and there appears to be no dispute as to the extent of his injuries. Thus, it seems fair to me that he receive the benefits of the employment relationship, just as his employer did.

Feel free to disagree with me--I'm open to different opinions. Sean O'Sullivan reported the case in an excellent article in the News Journal today and notes that the case has been appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. So we'll keep you posted.

Attorneys from Young Conaway traveled to Dover today to present at the Annual Training Conference for the Delaware Public Employer Labor Relations Association (DELPELRA).

Tim Snyder presented on the impact of health care reform on public employers. He also gave an overview of what public employers are doing to address the challenges of funding their pension plans.

Scott Holt provided practical tips on avoiding claims and litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Scott addressed misclassification of employees and failure to pay properly for breaks, training time, and travel time.

David Hansen wrapped up the Young Conaway portion of the program by speaking efforts of the IRS to tax employee benefits such payments for uniforms and the like.

Debbie Murray-Sheppard, the Executive Director of the Delaware Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), was the luncheon speaker. She updated the group on the activities of the Board over the past year.

After conclusion of the Conference, DELPELA held its annual meeting. Alan Kujala, Chief Human Resources Officer of Kent County, was elected its new President. Young Conaway's Bill Bowser was reelected as General Counsel.

Employers in the construction industry should, by now, be painfully aware of the Delaware Workplace Fraud Act, signed into law in 2009. The Act imposes stiff penalties on construction-services employers who misclassify employees as "independent contractors."

As a result of amendments signed into law on July 12, 2012 (HB 222.pdf), the General Assembly has added more teeth to the law, in the form of public shame. Now, the name of any employer that has violated the Workplace Fraud Act will be posted on the Department of Labor's website for a period of 3 years from the date of the final determination.

The DDOL will maintain something akin to a sex offender registry for misclassification--or affix the offending contractor with a Scarlet "M"--to use a more literary analogy. Regardless of how you may feel about this new penalty or its effectiveness as a deterrent, it makes clear that this issue remains a top priority for legislators. So far, Delaware's attempts to expand this law to other industries have not succeeded but, if Delaware follows the national trend, this won't last long. All Delaware companies would be well advised to ensure that they are not wrongfully labeling employees as "independent contractors," in light of the state and national focus on this issue.

Siemens Corporation was selected to receive the 2012 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award.  The company was nominated by an Army Reservist with Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics of Glasgow, Delaware.  Only 15 employers nationwide will be honored with the award, the DoD’s highest recognition given to employers for exceptional support of Guard and Reserve employees.  The company was selected from more than 3,000 nominees.

The employee who nominated Siemens reported that the company started an online Veteran’s Network to share job information and advice with military employees.  The company also partnered with the U.S. Army to allow soldiers to be stationed at Siemens facilities for training.  When Guard and Reserve members are deployed, supervisors maintain contact with them, and the company supports their families whenever they need assistance. In 2011, Siemens pledged to hire 600 veterans - actually hiring 631 in just 3 months. The company has pledged to hire 300 more veterans in 2012.

This year’s honorees will be recognized at an event in Washington, D.C. on September 20.  To learn more about the Freedom Award and this year’s recipients, visit the Freedom Award’s website.

The importance of our country’s military service members cannot be understated. As many service members are returning home, employers also should be particularly mindful of their reemployment and reinstatement obligations pursuant to USERRA.

See also

Two Delaware Employers Selected as Freedom Award Finalists

USERRA’s Statute of Limitations

Delaware employers in the long-term- and community-care industries are subject to new background-check requirements.  The Delaware Code as amended by S.B. 216 to establish an electronic web-based “background check center” for employment in long-term care or community settings.  S.B. 216 was signed by Gov. Markell on July 5, 2012. 

Creation of a Background Check Center

The biggest change is the creation of a new “Background Check Center.”  The stated purpose of the Center is to “consolidate various data streams” from inside and outside the State of Delaware, as necessary to conduct a proper background search. 

In short, it requires covered employers to use the Center to perform mandatory criminal background checks for new employees.  Nursing or similar facilities, hospice, home-health, and home-care agencies are subject to the law. 

There will be a fee for the background check, which is subject to change each year based on the Center’s operating costs. The statute specifically provides that applicants will be provided with “due process protections of notice and opportunity to be heard,” as well as the right to appeal.

Criminal-History Checks

S.B. 216 also amended the law relating to criminal-history checks performed by employers operating long-term-care facilities.  For example, these employers are now required to use the Background Check Centers, as described above.  Some other key changes for employers include:

• An applicant may be “conditionally hired” for 60 days but only if the employer has first received verification that the applicant has been fingerprinted by the State Bureau of Identification. 
• Criminal histories are to be treated as “strictly confidential” and must be stored in manner that maintains such confidentiality.

Employers aren’t the only ones with new obligations, though.  Employees who were grandfathered in under the original version of the statute have 120 days from the date the Background Check Center is implemented to submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check. 

Applicants have some new obligations, too.  They are required to execute a release that allows the employer to obtain a criminal history before the time of hire and post-hire for the purpose of updating the history during employment. 

Failure to comply will be costly.  Employers and applicants who fail to comply will be subject to a civil penalty of between $1,000 and $5,000 for each violation.

Key Take-Aways for Delaware Employers

The changes to the law is significant—but only for employers and potential employees in the long-term-care industry.  Employers in other industries are not affected and should be aware of the national trend away from the use of criminal histories as part of the hiring process.  However, for covered employers, the changes are many take effect immediately following the creation of the State’s Background Check Center, so be sure to consult with your employment law counsel about the steps you should be taking to prepare.

See also:

EEOC Publishes Guidance on Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records

5 Reasons Why Criminal Background Checks Are a Perfect Storm for a Lawsuit

New Philly Law Limits Use of Criminal-Background Checks

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 EEOC recently released new data, which identifies the number of charges filed by state. It's no surprise that the number of charges has increased steadily over the past three years, up from 163 charges filed in FY 2009, to 175 in FY 2010, to 228 last year.
But the percent of charges filed in Delaware as compared to the rest of the U.S. has remained consistent for the past 3 years--making 0.2% of the total charges filed in the U.S.

To put it in perspective, Delaware has one of the smallest populations in the country--we rank 45th out of 50. With less than 1 million residents, Delaware makes up less than 0.3% of the nation's population.

Although these numbers do sound positive, employers should remember that the EEOC isn't the only game in town. Because Delaware has a work-share agreement with the EEOC, the Delaware Department of Labor also receives charges of discrimination. In FY 2009, for example, the DDOL took 728 charges. The EEOC, on the other hand, received only 163 charges that year. In short, Delaware employers should look at these numbers with cautious optimism.

See also, What the Delaware Charge Statistics Mean for Employers
and DDOL Charge Statistics for FY 2009

Delaware is one step closer to legislating employers' ability to manage their workforces. I testified yesterday about the significant flaws in H.B. 308, called the "Workplace Privacy Act." The members of the Telecommunications, Internet, and Technology Committee nodded along, thanked me for my testimony, and then promptly voted to release the bill as is to the House of Representatives. This, my friends, is why I chose the legal profession over a career in politics.

As a result of the Committee's decision, the bill will proceed to the House in its very defective state. I've posted at length about some of the many, many concerns I have about the unintended consequences this bill would have on employers and employees. But, after my experience at Legislative Hall, I have just one additional thought to share.

It seems increasingly clear that the intention of the bill's sponsors is far more expansive than simply preventing employers from trying to get employees' and applicants' passwords. The intent, it seems to me, is to undo the entire body of case law that has been developed regarding privacy rights. In short, the sponsors are attempting to create a reasonable expectation of privacy in online activities and comments. This is directly opposite of what the law provides and would have tremendous implications on employers in every industry and of every size.

One good thing to come out of today's hearing, though, the increased awareness of the problems with this bill by the State Chamber of Commerce and its members. I'll be sure to keep you up to date with any developments over the next two weeks as we get closer to the next step in the legislative process. Until then, though, Delaware residents should consider contacting their state representative and expressing their concerns with the proposed law. Don't hesitate to direct them to the summary I wrote in my prior posts and the Comment Outline, which is linked in the second of the two posts. See Delaware Proposes Facebook-Privacy Law; and Why Delaware's Proposed Workplace Privacy Act Is All Wrong.

It’s only Wednesday but this has been a busy week already. If time allowed, I could write posts on several important employment-law-related topics. But, alas, my day job is keeping me busy, so this short-form recap of some of the more notable items will have to suffice.

Delaware’s Pending Password-Privacy Legislation

As I’ve written recently, there is a bill pending in Delaware’s House of Representatives that is intended to prohibit employers from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant turn over his or her password. If you’ve read my posts on this topic, you know that I have significant concerns about the scope of the bill and its potential consequences for both employers and employees. This afternoon, the bill will be presented for vote to the Telecommunications, Internet, and Technology Committee.  I will keep you posted about the results of that hearing as soon as possible. Until then, you should consider reaching out to your State Representative and voice any concern you may have with the bill.

Pretexting Via Social Media

I wrote earlier this week about a high-school principal in Missouri, who is alleged to have created a fake Facebook account for the purpose of spying on students in her school. As I stated in that post, using deceit about your identity for the purpose of obtaining information about someone, known as pretexting, is a wholly unacceptable practice.

On her Ride the Lightning blog, Sharon Nelson writes of a story with similarly disturbing facts.  In the case that she discusses, an insurer in a dog-bite case permitted its private investigator to lie about his identity on Facebook so he could spy on the plaintiff—a 12-year-old girl.  Folks, if it’s not obvious already, this type of dishonesty is despicable and those who engage in it should not be surprised at the negative repercussions that result. 

Show Me the Numbers

The EEOC has released a new set of statistics relating to Charges of Discrimination filed in FY 2011.  What is notable about this data is that it marks the first time the EEOC has published private-sector statistics for each of the states and territories.  The statistics provide the total number of charges filed in each state and a breakdown of charge by type of discrimination.  This is the first time that state-specific information has been released and it offers helpful insight on a more granular level.

Lots of blawgers have reviewed this data as it relates to their particular states. For example, Dan Schwartz wrote about the Connecticut numbers and McAfee & Taft’s EmployerLINC blog posted about the Oklahoma stats.  And Chris DeGroff and Matthew Gagnon, of Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Class Action blog wrote about the significance of this data.

Another One Bites the Dust

Because I just never seem to grow weary of stories involving smart people who fail to exercise good judgment when using social media, I’ll toss this one to my loyal readers for good measure.  In this social-media saga, it’s a CFO who was terminated for improperly communicating company information through his Twitter feed and public Facebook profile. Jon Hyman and Phil Miles recap the story in more detail.

Delaware's version of a Facebook-privacy law, called the "Workplace Privacy Act" (H.B. 308), will go to hearing on Wednesday before the Telecommunications, Internet, and Technology Committee in Delaware's House of Representatives. The bill, as amended, purports to prohibit employers from requesting or requiring an employee's or applicant's password to his or her social-networking site.

In actuality, the bill would fail to accomplish that single objective but would, at the same time, have implications far beyond the stated objective. I wrote in a more demure tone about some of my concerns regarding this bill. But, after seeing a video update (below) in which Rich Heffron of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce reports that the bill is likely to pass before the close of the session on June 30, it seems that a more direct approach may be in order.

I've outlined my many, many objections to the bill and have attached that document for those readers who may be interested in the more specifics. (HB 308, Full Text, Amendment, and Comments, PDF). For those of you more interested in the short-and-sweet edition, here's the Executive Summary of what I consider are the most dangerous provisions:

No Friending, Even for Family

The bill would prohibit a supervisor from sending a Facebook-friend request to any other employee in the organization--even if the supervisor worked in one division in Delaware and the friend-to-be worked in a different division in Hong Kong.

A supervisor whose teenaged son works for the same employer would be prohibited from "requiring or requesting" her son's Facebook password or "other related account information."

Employers May Not Investigate and Employees May Not Defend Accusations Made Against Them

The bill would prohibit an employer from investigating a report that an employee posted something to his Facebook page, such as: (a) a threat to commit workplace violence; (b) release of information protected by HIPPA and/or the state data-breach laws; (c) communication of trade-secret information; or (d) any number of other wrongdoings.

Not only would the employer be prohibited from asking the alleged wrongdoer about the allegations but the employer would also be prohibited from asking the accuser to support the allegations with proof of what she saw on Facebook that prompted her to make the report. In short, the employer would have no choice but to fie the accused--regardless of whether the individual wanted to clear his name.

The Rule, Though Too Broad, Is Swallowed By Its Exemptions--for Some Sectors

Yet, despite the incredibly overreaching effects of the bill, it is, at the same time, simply insufficient in its narrowness. the bill falls far short of satisfying its supposed purpose--i.e., to prevent employers from requiring employees and applicants to relinquish access to their social-media accounts in the name of a job. The two most glaring failures in this regard include the stated exemptions for:

• Law Enforcement, who are altogether exempt from the provisions of the bill; and
• The Department of Corrections, . . . maybe.

The exemption for the Department of Corrections is trickier. Although the bill seems to to exempt the DOC from the prohibitions in the bill, it is not entirely clear because the bill also states that the DOC shall not be prohibited "from accessing an employee's social networking site for purposes of employee supervision and retention."

Pardon me? If you think you know what such purposes may include, I'd love to hear about it.

Don't Say I Haven't Tried

Lest you think that I am the type who rushes to judgement and who condemns that which I did not create, let me take a preemptive strike against such conclusions. I forwarded my prior post and my comments to the sponsor for the Committee's consideration and review.

My question is this: Can we see eye to eye on an overly broad, unworkable law that has far-reaching implications for employees and employers? Despite what my business card may say, anyone who knows me knows that I come down squarely in the middle between "employer and employee," which is the only place I believe anything productive can be accomplished.

One of my biggest concerns about the bill is the scenario discussed above, in which the employee who is wrongly accused but who is unable to defend himself and who loses his employment as a result. Nor can I imagine any legitimate basis for there to be exemptions for law enforcement or the Department of Corrections as they are drafted in the proposed legislation. Thus, the concerns raised on behalf of employees are as strong as the problems raised by the bill for employers.

Call to Action, Delaware Employers and Employees

If you are a Delaware employer, a Delaware employee who uses social media and/or social-networking sites like Facebook, business proponent, or defender of civil liberties, I humbly suggest that you call your state representative between now and Wednesday at 3 p.m. to express the concerns you may have. And feel free to forward along my Comment Outline.