Seattle Community

Elizabeth Van Moppes
Employment Law Attorney & Advisor
Seattle, Washington
Greatly helpful
8.2
out of 10
4 votes

Can An Employee Be Terminated For Calling His Employer "Scumbag" On Facebook?

Most employers have policies governing their employees conduct off the job and insofar as it impacts the reputation of the employer-business. Those policies, and related procedures, may not be as watertight as previously thought.
Written Apr 05, 2011, read 2676 times since then.
Closed_info

 

The answer is not as obvious as previously believed. On Feb. 7, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc. (AMR) settled a charge related to this very issue. The fact of settlement is a signal to employers that their social media policies need to be clearly communicated and in compliance with NLRB regulations. In this matter, an AMR employee posted derogatory comments about her employer on Facebook from her home computer. Specifically, she referred to her supervisor as a “scumbag” and compared AMR management to psychiatric patients.  AMR fired the employee citing its policy prohibiting employees from disparaging the company or commenting on the company online without permission. 

The NLRB characterized AMR’s nondisparagement policy as “overbroad” because it potentially infringed on an employee’s right to discuss working conditions with other employees. Such a restraint on employee activity is prohibited under federal labor law. The NLRB also claimed that AMR’s termination of the employee was illegal because she was complaining about the general terms and conditions of her employment and her co-workers had been prompted by her posting to respond.

The NLRB considers such “water cooler conversations” about shared working conditions “protected concerted activity.”  For an employer this means that Facebook complaints may be deemed protected speech – especially where more than one employee is involved in the “conversation.” The NLRB’s position is that taking adverse action against an employee under such circumstances is unlawful.  This means that “overly broad” social media policies create potential liability for employers under the NLRB.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to revise its social media policy to ensure that they 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. Because part of the allegation was that the employee was denied union representation during an investigatory interview before she posted the Facebook comments at issue, AMR also agreed that employee requests for union representation will not be denied in the future and that employees will not be threatened with discipline for requesting union representation.  http://www.nlrb.gov/news/settlement-reached-case-involving-discharge-facebook-comments 

The lesson from this matter is to consider whether your company’s social media policy restricts off-duty conduct. Relevant case law suggests that employers need to be cautious when attempting to restrict what an employee can or cannot say about the company off-the-job. One key suggestion is to avoid policies that overrun areas where employees have a high expectation of privacy (e.g., personal e-mail and password-protected Web pages like Facebook). Also avoid penalizing employees for engaging in protected concerted activity (e.g., discussing working conditions with co-workers, no matter the forum). Importantly, a policy prohibiting employees from denigrating the employer’s product or services on a social media website would likely be enforceable.

Remember that a policy addressing employee use of social media is not a “one-size-fits-all” endeavor and if you are using a handbook found online it is vital to review it with an eye towards the ever-changing laws on these issues. I advise my clients to ensure that an experienced employment lawyer reviews their handbooks. Your social media policy is not the only policy that may be subject to legal constraints. Different employers bring different legal considerations to that review and the lawyer reviewing your handbook needs to be well-versed in those considerations. 

As always, any policy should reflect the unique needs and values of the company and its core values and mission statement.  These tend to set the tone for the employer-employee relationship and the social media policy should reflect these ideals just like every other policy in your handbook.

Finally, consider how the policy will be communicated to employees. Ensure that employees and supervisors are educated about the new policy and provide training, if needed. Review the policy on a regular basis to make sure it effectively addresses the world of social media and its evolving landscape.

Please Note:  This article is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this article you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Law Office of Elizabeth Van Moppes. The Law Office of Elizabeth Van Moppes is not in control of the linked sites and is not responsible for the contents of any linked site. This article should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. Elizabeth Van Moppes is licensed to practice law in the State of Washington only.

Learn more about the author, Elizabeth Van Moppes.

Comment on this article

  • Sales Mentor, Sales Coach, Sales Trainer, Consultant, Speaker, Humorist, Social Entrepreneur 
Southamption, Hampshire United Kingdom 
Terry Murphy
    Posted by Terry Murphy, Southamption, Hampshire United Kingdom | Apr 12, 2011

    I may be totally wrong, but as there are no other posts here to an intriguing article, let me ask...

    Is the employer's real error in giving a reason for termination in an at will state?

    (Not asking for a legal answer...:))

    --Terry

  • Document Management Solution Provider 
Lynnwood, Washington 
Peter Frix
    Posted by Peter Frix, Lynnwood, Washington | Apr 14, 2011

    Without all the details, it still seems the NLRB is off base. Were "water-cooler" discussions were the venue, I'd agree. However, our water cooler is big enough for 2 - 3 people to jabber next to it.

    46% of the US population over 12 now has a FACEBOOK page. That makes it a public venue, only further substantiated by the move of business to commercialize the space for branding. It seems to me this lessens the strength of the NLRB position.

    Am I nuts?

  • Blogger 
Marysville, Washington 
Kimberly Gauthier
    Posted by Kimberly Gauthier, Marysville, Washington | Apr 14, 2011

    I find that it's best that I keep work and personal separate. I never discuss work online, I spend my time discussing photography and my photo blog. It's just a nice division for me.

    That being said, I agree with Peter. My company can't censor me when I'm out of the office. Granted, it would be stupid of me to take a bad day straight to my blog, but if I'm out with friends and mention a grievance, that's my right and my business.

  • IT Consulting, IT Support 
Seattle, Washington 
James Murray
    Posted by James Murray, Seattle, Washington | Apr 14, 2011

    It may be legal to disparage your boss with permanent postings to the internet, but is it politically wise.

    I agree with Terry, the next time the person is fired for posting a comment like this, the legal response won't be the same. The result to the employee will.

    I agree with Kimberly as well, this type of behaviour is political suicide... not only will your boss read it, but potential employers for the rest of one's life will be able to find the comment when looking up information following a positive interview.

    What boss would want to hire someone who publically calls thier superior a scumbag on the internet.

Closed_info