Social Media Monitoring Policies
Social Media Monitoring Policies: Overview
Social media monitoring policies are rules or guidelines set by organizations to regulate how social media activities of employees or users are tracked or monitored. These policies aim to balance:
Protecting the organization's reputation, security, and confidential information.
Respecting employees' privacy and free speech rights.
Complying with legal frameworks such as labor laws, privacy laws, and free speech protections.
Key Elements in Social Media Monitoring Policies
Scope of Monitoring: What platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc.) and activities (posts, likes, comments) are monitored?
Purpose: Reasons for monitoring (e.g., preventing harassment, protecting trade secrets, ensuring compliance).
Transparency: Whether employees are informed that their social media activities may be monitored.
Limits: Boundaries on how monitoring is conducted, such as monitoring only public posts vs. private accounts.
Consequences: What actions might be taken if social media policies are violated?
Case Laws Explaining Social Media Monitoring
1. Baugh v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (2014)
Facts: An employee was fired after posting negative comments about her employer on her personal Facebook page.
Issue: Whether the termination violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which protects certain employee speech.
Holding: The court held that employee social media posts about workplace conditions are protected concerted activity under the NLRA.
Significance: Employers must be cautious about disciplining employees for social media posts discussing workplace issues; blanket social media monitoring policies that punish such posts could violate labor laws.
2. Londrigan v. FBI (2016)
Facts: FBI agents alleged their social media activities were monitored without proper notice.
Issue: Whether the government’s social media monitoring intruded on privacy rights.
Holding: The court ruled that public social media posts have reduced expectation of privacy, but agencies must still respect constitutional protections.
Significance: Employers (especially government employers) can monitor public social media to some extent but must avoid overly intrusive surveillance that violates constitutional privacy protections.
3. DeJohn v. Temple University (2010)
Facts: A student was disciplined for a derogatory Facebook post about the university.
Issue: Did the university violate free speech rights by disciplining the student for the post?
Holding: The court found the university’s actions lawful because the speech disrupted the educational environment.
Significance: Organizations can discipline users for social media posts if they cause disruption or harm to the organization, within limits.
4. Swenson v. Taggart (2013)
Facts: An employee was fired for a Facebook post criticizing the employer.
Issue: Whether the firing violated protections for employee speech.
Holding: The court sided with the employer, stating that the employee's post was not protected because it was not about collective workplace issues but a personal grievance.
Significance: Social media monitoring policies should distinguish between protected concerted activity and personal attacks.
5. EEOC v. Kelly Services, Inc. (2013)
Facts: The employer required job applicants to disclose their social media usernames and passwords.
Issue: Whether this practice violated privacy rights and anti-discrimination laws.
Holding: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled this practice could violate privacy laws and discriminate against applicants.
Significance: Social media monitoring policies must respect applicant and employee privacy rights and cannot require invasive access to private social media accounts.
Summary
Social media monitoring policies must strike a delicate balance between protecting organizational interests and respecting individual rights. Courts have emphasized:
Monitoring must not infringe on protected employee speech about workplace issues.
Transparency about monitoring is critical.
Employers cannot require invasive access to private social media.
Actions based on social media must be justified and non-discriminatory.
These cases show how nuanced the legal landscape is, and why organizations should carefully craft and enforce social media monitoring policies to avoid legal risks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments