Woman Fired Over Facebook Rant; FB Dangers

[Masochist]

While I believe in free speech, this woman is either an idiot for thinking comments on an open forum with co-workers wouldn't be seen, or a troll for intentionally putting it out there in the hopes of inciting something. :mad:


Woman fired over Facebook rant; suit follows
National Labor Relations Board say comments are protected free speech

By SAM HANANEL
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A Connecticut woman who was fired after she posted disparaging remarks about her boss on Facebook has prompted a first-of-its-kind legal case by federal authorities who say her comments are protected speech under labor laws.

The National Labor Relations Board alleges that American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc. illegally fired Dawnmarie Souza from her job as an emergency medical technician late last year after she criticized her supervisor on her personal Facebook page and then traded Facebook messages about the negative comments with other employees.

The complaint, filed Oct. 27 by the board's Hartford, Conn., regional office, could set a precedent for employers to heed as more workers use social networking sites to share details about their jobs.

"It's the same as talking at the water cooler," said Lafe Solomon, the board's acting general counsel. "The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work."

Federal labor law has long protected employees against reprisal for talking to co-workers on their own time about their jobs and working conditions, including remarks that may be critical of managers. The law applies whether or not workers are covered by a union.

NLRB officials claim the Connecticut ambulance company has an unlawful policy that prohibits employees from making disparaging remarks about supervisors and depicting the company "in any way" over the Internet without permission.

"This is the first complaint we've issued over comments on Facebook, but I have no doubt that we'll be seeing more," Solomon said. "We have to develop policies as we go in this fast-changing environment."

The trouble for Souza started when her supervisor asked her to prepare an investigative report when a customer complained about her work, according to the complaint. Souza claimed she was denied representation by her union, the Teamsters Local 443.

Later that day, Souza logged onto her Facebook page from a home computer and wrote: "Looks like I'm getting some time off. Love how the company allows a 17 to be a supervisor."

A 17 is the code the company uses for a psychiatric patient. Souza also referred to her supervisor with two expletives. Her remarks drew supportive Facebook postings from other colleagues.

John Barr, an attorney representing the company, said the real reason Souza was fired was because of two separate complaints about her "rude and discourteous service" within a 10-day period. He said Souza would have been fired whether the Facebook comments were made or not.

Barr said the company understands that workers have right to talk about wages and working conditions. But he said it stands by its policy against employees discussing the company on the Internet, including social media sites.

"If you're going to make disgusting, slanderous statements about co-workers, that is something that our policy does not allow," Barr said.

Jonathan Kreisberg, director of the board's regional office in Hartford, said the company's policy is overly broad. He acknowledged that the law protecting worker speech has some limits, such as not allowing employees to disrupt the workplace or engage in threatening conduct. But Kreisberg argued that Souza's Facebook comments did not cross a legal line.

"Here she was on her own time, on her own computer and on her own Facebook page making these comments," Kreisberg said. "If employees are upset about their supervisor and get together on their own time talk about him, criticize and call him names, they can do that."

A hearing on the case before an administrative law judge is set for Jan. 25.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[MVP]

Just another example of how FB can be used against you.

Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: November 8, 2010

In what labor officials and lawyers view as a ground-breaking case involving workers and social media, the National Labor Relations Board has accused a company of illegally firing an employee after she criticized her supervisor on her Facebook page.

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.

The labor relations board announced last week that it had filed a complaint against an ambulance service, American Medical Response of Connecticut, that fired an emergency medical technician, accusing her, among other things, of violating a policy that bars employees from depicting the company “in any way” on Facebook or other social media sites in which they post pictures of themselves.

Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”

That act gives workers a federally protected right to form unions, and it prohibits employers from punishing workers — whether union or nonunion — for discussing working conditions or unionization. The labor board said the company’s Facebook rule was “overly broad” and improperly limited employees’ rights to discuss working conditions among themselves.

Moreover, the board faulted another company policy, one prohibiting employees from making “disparaging” or “discriminatory” “comments when discussing the company or the employee’s superiors” and “co-workers.”

The board’s complaint prompted Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a law firm with a large labor and employment practice representing hundreds of companies, to send a “lawflash” advisory on Monday to its clients, saying, “All private sector employers should take note,” regardless “of whether their work force is represented by a union.”

The firm added, “Employers should review their Internet and social media policies to determine whether they are susceptible to an allegation that the policy would ‘reasonably tend to chill employees’ ” in the exercise of their rights to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization.

American Medical Response of Connecticut denied the labor board’s allegations, saying they were without merit. “The employee in question was discharged based on multiple, serious complaints about her behavior,” the company said in a statement. “The employee was also held accountable for negative personal attacks against a co-worker posted publicly on Facebook. The company believes that the offensive statements made against the co-workers were not concerted activity protected under federal law.”

The case involves Dawnmarie Souza, who had to prepare a response to a customer’s complaint about her work. Ms. Souza, the board said, was unhappy that her supervisor would not let a representative of the Teamsters, the union representing the company’s workers, help prepare her response.

Ms. Souza then mocked her supervisor on Facebook, using several vulgarities to ridicule him, according to Jonathan Kreisberg, director of the board’s Hartford office, which filed the complaint. He also said she had written, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” — 17 is the company’s lingo for a psychiatric patient.

The labor board said that her comments “drew supportive responses from her co-workers” and led to further negative comments about the supervisor. Mr. Kreisberg said: “You’re allowed to talk about your supervisor with your co-workers. You’re allowed to communicate the concerns and criticisms you have. The only difference in this case is she did it on Facebook and did it on her own time and her own computer.”

An administrative law judge is scheduled to begin hearing the case on Jan. 25. Marshall B. Babson, a member of the National Labor Relations Board in the 1980s, said a broad company rule that says one cannot make disparaging comments about supervisors is clearly illegal under labor law. But he said an employee’s criticizing a company or supervisor on Facebook was not necessarily protected activity.

“There will arguably be cases where it is not concerted activity,” Mr. Babson said, suggesting that if a worker lashed out in a post against a supervisor but was not communicating with co-workers, that type of comment might not be protected.

If the Facebook conversation involves several co-workers, however, it is far more likely to be viewed as “concerted protected activity,” he said.

But employees might cross the line into unprotected territory if they disparage supervisors over something unrelated to work — for instance, a supervisor’s sexual performance — or if their statements are disloyal.

Courts often view workers’ statements as disloyal when they are defamatory and are not supported by facts. Mr. Babson cited a case upholding the firing of airline workers who held signs saying their airline was unsafe. But, he said, if employees held signs accurately saying their airline or restaurant had been cited for dozens of safety violations, that would most likely be protected.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?src=me&ref=general

MVP

[x SF med]

If you post it on the 'net, expect it to be used against you. Just my .02, YMMV

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

If you post it on the 'net, expect it to be used against you. Just my .02, YMMV

Good advice! This IMO applies to e-mail as well especially on computers that don't belong to you.

It amazes me what some people using 'work' computers will type on them. FB is a nice place for the most part, if you set the security settings right and watch what you post there. Think before you post things!~

[Gypsy]

"It's the same as talking at the water cooler," said Lafe Solomon, the board's acting general counsel. "The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work."

I couldn't disagree more. This was obviously "out there" for all to see. Quite a difference from a whisper session at the water cooler IMO.

[Richard]

A good summary of the issues related to our legal system's again playing catch-up with the needs of an increasingly rapidly evolving sociey.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Trashing your boss on Facebook: A protected right?
ThisWeek, 11 Nov 2010

It turns out that venting about your job online might not get you fired after all.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that the National Labor Relations Board has intervened to prevent the firing of an employee for criticizing his or her boss on Facebook. Here's a brief guide to the precedent-setting action:

What happened?

Dawnmarie Souza was fired from her job at American Medical Response of Connecticut, an ambulance service, after insulting her boss on Facebook. The incident began when Souza was hit with a customer complaint and felt mistreated by a supervisor. She took to Facebook to vent her frustration, using "several vulgarities" to characterize the supervisor, and referring him to as a "17" — ambulance-service lingo for a psychiatric patient. American Medical Reponse has a strict social media policy that forbids employees from characterizing the company "in any way"on Facebook. Following the incident, Souza was dismissed.

Why did the government intervene on her behalf?

The National Labor Relations Board's stance is that American Medical Response "improperly limited employees’ rights to discuss working conditions among themselves." Souza's complaint counts as "concerted speech," which is covered under a 1935 pro-union law that advocates such "for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In other words, workers are free to get together in groups to vent about workplace conditions or problems with management.

So you can say whatever you want on Facebook about your boss?

Not quite, says Eve Tahmincioglu at The Atlantic. Legal authorities agree that personal attacks — "abusive, libelous, or pornographic comments," for instance — are not protected. Neither can employees expect to get away with "divulging company secrets."

What's going on with the case?

An administrative law judge is scheduled to begin a hearing on January 25 to decide whether Souza's comments are protected. For its part, American Medical Response claims that Souza was fired "based on multiple, serious complaints about her behavior," not just the Facebook posting.

What implications could this have?

This case "could have a far-reaching impact on social media policies at the nation's employers who now prohibit any un-sanctioned company comments," says Tahmincioglu, and "could also be a boon for employee free speech on the internet." An "ideal" strategy for bosses eager to avoid this kind of situation, says Mario Sundar at LinkedIn, is seeking employee input when creating a social media policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20101111/cm_theweek/209162

[Masochist]

So you can say whatever you want on Facebook about your boss?

Not quite, says Eve Tahmincioglu at The Atlantic. Legal authorities agree that personal attacks — "abusive, libelous, or pornographic comments," for instance — are not protected. Neither can employees expect to get away with "divulging company secrets."

That was my first thought if it becomes "okay" to talk trash via the web without retribution by the company. Could we see a slew of libel suits instead? What is going to be the line between "online water cooler talk" and damage to a person's reputation?