The NLRB’s interest in social media has been in the news recently and I have commented on it here and here. The assault on employers’ efforts to manage their employees use of social media as it pertains to the workplace continued this month with two new cases.
The first case involves Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit that provides social services to low-income clients. According to the NLRB, the nonprofit unlawfully discharged five employees after they criticized working conditions on Facebook, specifically commenting on work load and staffing. The NLRB press release adds these details:
The case involves an employee who, in advance of a meeting with management about working conditions, posted to her Facebook page a coworker’s allegation that employees did not do enough to help the organization’s clients. The initial post generated responses from other employees who defended their job performance and criticized working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. After learning of the posts, Hispanics United discharged the five employees who participated, claiming that their comments constituted harassment of the employee originally mentioned in the post.
An attorney for Hispanics United of Buffalo has responded, including the following:
The five employees who filed charges with the NLRB were terminated due to their harassing conduct towards a co-employee, which included, but was not just limited to, comments made on Facebook. Their termination was solely based on the statements and conduct directed at this harassed employee which does not qualify as protected concerted activity under Federal law. The Facebook comments were only a part of the complaint made by the harassed employee to HUB. After an investigation into the conduct of these five employees at will, HUB determined they had acted in a manner which warranted termination. The issue of working conditions was never raised by these terminated employees with HUB, nor did it factor into the decision to terminate them.
This week, the NLRB filed a complaint against Chicago car dealership Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., alleging that it violated the NLRA by terminating an employee for Facebook comments. The complaint states that:
On or about June 14, 2010, Charging Party Becker posted on his Facebook page employees’ concerted protest and concerns about Respondent's handling of a sales event which could impact their earnings.
On or about June 22, 2010, respondent discharged Charging Party Becker.
If nothing else, these new cases indicate the NLRB’s on-going interest in cases arising from the use of social media. Employers must review policies and, more importantly, train managers to spot these issues before taking any adverse action arising from employees’ use of social media. The Hispanics United of Buffalo underscores the difficulty employers may face in this area. Employers have an obligation to address harassing conduct by employees even if it occurs outside the workplace, e.g. via social media sites. However, having done so, they may face allegations that their conduct violates the NLRA. Are employers in a Catch-22? Not necessarily. As with many employment law matters, the ultimate outcome largely turns on the facts of the case. If there is clear harassment as opposed to activity protected by the NLRA, the employer should prevail. The key in these situations is doing a thorough job of investigating and documenting the situation before taking action. Given the number of recent cases and their high profile in the media, it would be wise to assume your decisions will be scrutinized closely by the NLRB at some point and act accordingly.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Diversity
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- FLSA
- Discrimination
- Immigration
- National Enforcement Plan
- Coronavirus
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Sexual Harassment
- Social Media
- Sixth Circuit
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Holiday Policies
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Paid Leave Laws
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Litigation
- IRS
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- Disability
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA