Drafting social media policies under pressure
With growing scrutiny on social media policies from regulators and plaintiffs, now is the time to review existing policies for potential pitfalls.
April 30, 2013 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
Read InsideCounsel's full cover story on the risks and rewards of social media use.
With growing scrutiny on social media policies from regulators and plaintiffs, now is the time to review existing policies for potential pitfalls. These tips will assist companies in drafting policies that won't garner unwanted attention from federal agencies or potential litigants.
1. Be specific.
Every company that had its druthers would like to bar employees from disparaging or criticizing the company online, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found that such policies violate the law because employees could interpret them as restricting their right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with other workers.
“The board is taking an aggressive position toward any broad statement such as 'you can't post messages that damage any person's reputation,'” says Ken Yerkes, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. “On the other hand, the NLRB has embraced a policy that prohibits unlawful harassment or discrimination on social media. You need to make sure you're specific about the conduct you're trying to address.”
2. Tailor to your industry.
The concerns facing a carwash are different than those facing a hospital, and their social media policies should be different, too. Although a simple policy that prohibits harassment and discrimination may be sufficient for the carwash, a hospital's policy should specifically address Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act restrictions on sharing any patient information online. Likewise, companies in highly regulated industries, such as financial institutions, energy companies or pharmaceutical makers, should take into account the regulations specific to their industry, especially where they concern the timing and contents of disclosures to the public.
3. Give examples.
Companies naturally want to keep employees from disseminating intellectual property or proprietary information on the Internet, but policies that state employees cannot post “confidential” information have caught the attention of the NLRB as potentially prohibiting employees from engaging in concerted action, even if the company's intention was to keep employees from sharing customer lists, confidential manufacturing processes or proprietary formulas.
“You're in a far better position to defend the policy if you define the term 'confidential information' and give specific examples of what employees cannot post,” says Brian Hayes, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins.
4. Distinguish work from personal time.
“Policies often don't draw a distinction between what employees can do on company time using company systems and what employees can do on their personal time using their personal computers,” says Richard Greenberg, a partner at Jackson Lewis. “Employees are not entitled to as much freedom when they are using the employers' systems.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250