Can You Fire An Employee for A Facebook “Like”?

Since the arrival of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, employers have worried about protecting themselves from disparaging comments by their employees. Meanwhile, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has intensified its scrutiny of employers’ social media policies and whether such policies prohibit employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives employees the right to act together “to improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees,” and social media has become one of the main avenues through which employees do so. An employer who violates this right and disciplines or fires an employee for engaging in protected activity faces big penalties, including having to reinstate the employee.

In a series of rulings over the past few years, the NLRB has taken the position that social media sites are “virtual water coolers,” and whatever employees have a right to discuss around the workplace with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, they may also discuss on social media. In an August 22, 2014 decision, the NLRB decided that “liking” a Facebook post that deals with working conditions is also “protected concerted speech.” Three D, LLC (Triple Play), 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014). The NLRB found that Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille violated the NLRA when it terminated two employees for participating in a Facebook discussion about the additional state income taxes they owed because of the employer’s withholding mistakes, including the one who had only “liked” the post.

The NLRB concluded that the Facebook discussion was protected activity because “the purpose of [the] employee communications is to seek and provide mutual support looking toward group action to encourage the employer to address problems in terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or undermine its reputation….” The judge found that the employee’s “like” “expressed his support for the others who were sharing their concerns and therefore ‘constituted participation in the discussion that was sufficiently meaningful as to rise to the level of’ protected, concerted activity.” In balancing the interest of Triple Play’s owners in preventing harmful comments by their employees, the NLRB held that the comments were not “so disloyal” as to lose protection under the NLRA.

The NLRB also reviewed Triple Play’s Internet/Blogging Policy, and found that restricting online communications involving “confidential or proprietary information about the Company, or…inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers” violated the NLRA because it could reasonably include protected discussions. While the NLRB acknowledged that the policy did not “explicitly restrict protected activity,” it was still problematic because employees could reasonably interpret it as “proscribing any discussions about their terms and conditions of employment [that the employer] deemed ‘inappropriate.’”

As this decision makes clear, because a “like” standing alone can be protected, employers should tread carefully when considering taking action against employees for their social media activities and employer social media policies should be narrowly tailored to avoid prohibiting protected discussion. The NLRB will likely continue to scrutinize employer social media policies, and now is the time for employers to assess how to properly limit and respond to employees’ social media use.

Sara Dajani is an Associate Attorney with the DC region business law firm of Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. Sara can be reached at sdajani@BerenzweigLaw.com. 

Depressed Employee Wants Irregular Work Hours

A budget analyst for the Department of Agriculture with a long history of severe depression asked the agency for permission to work irregular hours each day depending on how she was feeling on a given day.  On some days, the depressed employee woke up too sick to work until the afternoon, when her condition would improve and she could get her work done; on other days, she was able to work in the morning but then had to stop in the afternoon when her depression got too bad.  Although she missed a lot of time at work due to her illness, the employee always completed her assignments on time and there were no complaints about her work product.  Even so, the agency insisted that she be at work during regular hours like her colleagues, and they denied her request for an irregular schedule.

The employee sued for disability discrimination, arguing that as long as she got her work done, it should not matter when during the day she did her work.  The agency countered that it should be able to insist that its employees be at work during normal set hours each day.

The employee’s position prevailed.  The federal appellate court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that an irregular schedule, such as the one sought by the budget analyst in this case, can be an appropriate accommodation under federal disability law.  The appeals court rejected the agency’s argument that irregular work schedules pose a per se unreasonable burden on employers.  Rather, there must be a fact-specific inquiry done on a case-by-case basis to see whether an irregular work schedule will work in a particular workplace for both the employer and disabled employee.  The appeals court noted that technological advances and the expansion of teleworking have already contributed to a more flexible work schedule for many employees.

Most companies want the discretion to set regular work hours for their employees, and this decision still allows them to do so as long as companies can show that a predictable work schedule is essential to the job an employee is doing.  In other words, companies need to be able to explain why it is critical for all employees, even disabled ones, to work during set hours.  Some reasons might include fostering workplace discussions or ensuring that employees are responding to client communications in a reliable and timely manner.  Such reasons should be conveyed to any employee who is seeking a deviation from his or her normal work schedule.

Declan Leonard is a Managing Partner of Washington, DC area business law firm Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. Declan can be reached at DLeonard@BerenzweigLaw.com.