Facebook Firing Ends in Settlement with NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it had reached a settlement in a case involving an employee’s discharge for posting negative comments about a supervisor on the employee’s Facebook page. Click here for the NLRB’s press release.

In sum, however, the NLRB had issued a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., on October 27, 2010,  alleging that the discharge violated federal labor law  (the National Labor Relations Act or “NLRA”) because the employee was engaged in “protected activity” when she posted the comments about her supervisor, and responded to further comments from her co-workers.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees  have a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or non-union — for discussing working conditions or unionization.

The NLRB complaint also alleged that the company maintained overly broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees. This policy prohibited employees from making disparaging remarks about the company or depicting it online without permission. Further, the NLRB alleged that AMR (the employer) had illegally denied union representation to the employee during an investigatory interview shortly before the employee posted the negative comments on her Facebook page.

Under the terms of the approved settlement, the company agreed to revise its social media policy to ensure that the rules do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work, and that they would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions. The allegations involving the employee’s discharge were resolved through a separate, private agreement between the employee and the company.

The Take Away for Employers

This had been the first case in which the NLRB sought to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site was a protected activity under the NLRA and that employers would be violating the NLRA by punishing workers for making statements in the context of social media. Accordingly, employers likely would have welcomed guidance from the NLRB as to how the 75-year-old NLRA would be reconciled with the technological realities of how employees communicate in the age of social media.

For example, the employee involved in the NLRB’s complaint, Dawnmarie Souza, at one point mocked her supervisor on Facebook, using several vulgarities to ridicule him. This eventually drew supportive responses from her co-workers that led to further negative comments about the supervisor. Where a Facebook conversation involves several co-workers it is more likely to be viewed as “concerted protected activity.” But what if instead, Ms. Souza had simply lashed out in a negative post against a supervisor and no co-workers joined in the discussion (not even a single “like” in Facebook terminology). Would that type of comment in the absence of “co-worker discussion” still be considered protected?

In any event, from a strategic perspective, employers should appreciate that this issue will be resolved another day, perhaps under a less “labor friendly” NLRB.

The clear take-away, however, is that the NLRB’s original complaint and this settlement signals that the NLRB intends to protect employees’ rights to discuss the conditions of their employment with co-workers irrespective of whether this discussion takes place at the water cooler or on Facebook.

Accordingly, it is critical for employers – regardless of whether your workforce is unionized or not – to review your Internet and social media policies to determine whether they would be subject to a similar attack by the NLRB that the policy ‘reasonably tends to chill employees’ ” in the exercise of their rights under the NLRA to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization. Areas to consider include:

• Does the social media policy expressly restrict protected activity;
• Would an employee construe the social media policy as prohibiting protected activity;
• Has the social media policy been used to discipline employees who engaged in protected activity; and
• Was the policy put into place in in response to concerted or protected activity.

None of  this should be taken as legal advice, but it is good advice. And we would welcome the opportunity to offer our insight as to what policies should and should not say and strategies for managing the unique risks found at the intersection of social media and employment and labor law.

Revisions to FTC’s Red Flags Rule Exempts Lawyers, Doctors, and Accountants

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Red Flag Rules have been revised to exclude certain professionals prior to the latest enforcement deadline of December 31, 2010. Specifically, President Obama signed into law on December 18, 2010, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 (Clarification Act), which clarifies the scope of the FTC’s Red Flags Rule. Under the amendment, professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants are excluded from the Red Flags Rule. For a full copy of the Act, click here

The Red Flags Rule was enacted to protect consumers from identity theft by requiring “creditors” covered under the Rule to establish written policies and procedures to identify risks of identity theft to their customers. Under the plain language of the Red Flags Rule, a business becomes a “creditor” when it provides products or services in advance and require payment from the customer at a later time. Further, under prior FTC interpretations “creditor” was broadly interpreted to cover lawyers, doctors, accountants, and others because they bill for services after the services have been performed.

Under the the Clarification Act, however, the meaning of the term “creditor” now includes only those who (1) regularly and in the ordinary course of business obtain or use consumer reports in connection with a credit transaction; (2) furnish information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with a credit transaction; or (3) advance funds to or on behalf of a person, based on an obligation of the person to repay the funds. The Clarification Act does not specifically exclude doctors, lawyers, and accountants. But Senator Christopher Dodd (D.-Conn.) and Senator Mark Begich, (D.-Alaska) make clear that the Clarification Act does not extend to these professionals and other small businesses as creditors covered under the Red Flags Rule simply because they provide services and bill clients, patients, and customers for payment at a later time, except to the extent that they furnish information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with a credit transaction. Finally, the Clarification Act allows the FTC to determine in the future whether the scope of the Rule should be expanded to include other types of creditors that offer or maintain accounts subject to a reasonably foreseeable risk of identify theft.

From a practical standpoint, even those professionals and businesses specifically exempted from the Red Flags Rule should establish an identity theft prevention program: It is a good business practice to eliminate or, at least, minimize the chance of a data breach and minimizing the subsequent fall out with your customers. Additionally, there may be other applicable regulations that may require certain protection programs. For example, doctors must have HIPAA security programs in place and there is a patchwork of state statutes that cover data security and reporting requirements for breaches.

For questions about Red Flags Rule Compliance, establishing an information security program, or improving your organization’s current policies and procedures for preventing losses,  contact E-Business Counsel, PLC.