Technology: The 10 best practices for drafting a lawful social media policy
Social media policies and work rules need to balance your companys goals while still permitting employee protected activities under the NLRA.
March 14, 2014 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Let's face it: Drafting a lawful social media policy is a challenge. New rulings can quickly make relevant policies outdated. In fact, if your company first drafted a social media policy a few years (or even several months) back, it would be wise to review that policy in light of recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions. Over the last two years, the NLRB has actively investigated company social media policies and has routinely shot down specific work rules — and sometimes entire social media policies — because they violate their employees' right to engage in protected and concerted activities.
Social media policies and work rules need to balance your company's goals while still permitting employee protected activities under the NLRA. The primary reasons why social media policies and work rules are struck down are that they are vague, overbroad, and/or could potentially interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected activities.
NLRB guidance on lawful social media policies and work rules is less than clear (and arguably contradictory at times), but, what we do know is that to comply with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employers must:
- Clearly and specifically communicate organization, legal, and regulatory rules to employees, executives, independent contractors and others working on behalf of the company;
- Provide employees with a clear understanding of what constitutes appropriate, acceptable, and lawful business behavior; and
- Help employers demonstrate that the company is committed to operating a business environment in a straight-forward and NLRA-compliant manner.
With those guidelines in mind, here are some best practices for drafting NLRA compliant social media policies:
- Set forth the goals of the policy. State the goals the company intends to achieve. Advise employees of their right to use social media while providing a clear understanding of prohibited social media activity.
- Use specific and clear language. Do not use general, broad, or vague prohibitions against certain conduct that could be interpreted as intent to chill protected activities.
- Define key concepts and terms. Provide definitions of key terms either within the text of the policy or in a glossary section. Consider defining such terms as “confidential data,” “trade secrets,” and “customer information.”
- Use plain English. Skip the confusing legalese, sophisticated technical terms, acronyms, and abbreviations. If you must use such terms, add the terms or acronyms to the glossary or define them in the body of the policy.
- Provide specific examples of prohibited conduct. The context of a social media policy or work rule is key to determining its lawfulness. By providing a list of specific examples of unacceptable behavior, statements, and activities, an employee can more easily understand the type of activity prohibited under the policy.
- Do not restrict more than necessary. Overbroad policies not only decrease employee morale, but could expose a company to liability for chilling its employees' protected rights. For example, a policy prohibiting the use of social media on company property would most likely violate an employee's right to discuss terms and conditions of employment with other employees on non-work time and in non-work areas.
- Do not prohibit employees from identifying themselves with the company. Employees have a protected right to use the company name and logo while engaged in protected concerted activity.
- Advise employees of the employer's right to monitor them. If you monitor your employees' online activity at work, the social media policy should advise them accordingly.
- Tailor the policy to your company. There is no “one size fits all” social media policy. You should tailor your policy to the specific needs of your company. For example, if your company has trade secrets, or it is subject to HIPAA laws and regulations, then ensure that your policy prohibits employees from posting that type of sensitive information on any social media platform.
- Do not rely on savings clauses. The NLRB routinely determines that a savings clause, which states that no rule contained within the policy is intended to prohibit protected activity, is insufficient to cure ambiguities and overbroad work rules and policies. A better practice is to use limiting language within specific rules to make clear that the particular rule is not intended to limit protected rights.
Following these best practices will ensure that you are up to the challenge of drafting an effective social media policy. Just be sure to familiarize yourself with the laws in your jurisdiction, review any changes or updates in the law, and consult legal counsel who practices in this area to ensure compliance.
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 AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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