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
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Immigration
- Affirmative Action
- Compliance
- Labor Law
- FMLA
- NLRB
- Wage & Hour
- Arbitration
- Coronavirus
- National Labor Relations Board
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Social Media
- Diversity
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Rules
- Transgender Issues
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Overtime Pay
- OSHA
- National Enforcement Plan
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Holiday Policies
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Litigation
- Paid Leave Laws
- IRS
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Marijuana
- Accommodation
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Disability
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- 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)
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- Authorization Without Documentation: Employers Left with I-9 Compliance Questions Following TPS Expirations for El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine
- EEOC Moves to Rescind 2012 Criminal Background Check Guidance
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- 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