Not in an at-will state. I can fire whoever I want for disparaging her employer on social media. Hell, I can fire her for picking her nose. You can sue, but you'd lose. |
Hmmm....does your employer allow you to use the internet or social media on work time for any other non-work reason? If yes, then it cannot discriminate because you were using social media to engage in protected, concerted activity vs. posting about your family's BBQ this weekend. |
And if no? |
Wrong. The NLRA applies in all 50 states. There is no such thing as an "at-will" state. Yes, you could fire her for picking her nose, but you cannot fire her for complaining about her working conditions along with other co-workers. You are right that you could fire her for "disparaging her employer" but it is a fine line between disparagement and talking about working conditions with her co-workers. If I were you, I would consult an attorney before firing any employees. The NLRB has focused a lot of attention on social media cases recently. |
OP wasn't engaging in conversation on Facebook. She made a status and a couples coworkers "liked" the post. Didn't even put an "I agree!" |
There are really two issues here. One, if the employer has such a strict no-social media policy that it bans ANY communication with co-workers about working conditions, then the policy may itself violate the NLRA. See the links I posted earlier which talks about overbroad social media policies. The issue of whether an employee may use the internet/FB/social media on work time using work resources is a discrimination analysis. If the employer has a valid social media/internet policy (i.e. cannot use internet for personal use during work time using work resources), and actually enforces said policy, then yes, an employee could be fired for posting on FB during work time. In my experience, it is pretty easy to poke holes in an employer's claim that they have an enforced "no-personal use of internet" policy. The vast majority of us who sit at computers all day are either explicitly permitted-- or essentially allowed-- to use the internet for personal use during the work day. So it's pretty thin for an employer to start enforcing the policy ONLY when an employee is engaged in protected, concerted activity but not when she's using it to pay bills or order stuff on amazon. |
I haven't researched the issue of "likes," but if I represented the OP, I would argue that other co-workers "liking" her posts was enough to be "concerted" activity. I'm sure there are cases that discuss this. And who knows what other facts there may be that the OP has not shared. |
This is whole thread seems weird - like it was a "planted" question. |
Nope. I'm just a labor lawyer who's on leave now (and so wasting time on DCUM while baby naps), and have posted the substantive responses to OP's question, which I did not plant. |
PP, there is at least one NLRB case on the issue of "likes" being concerted (they are, and it's the same as engaging in a conversation). |
Yup, that totally makes sense to me. The whole point of "likes" is that you are showing that you _agree_ with the status update! That's the same thing, these days, as if the OP made her statements in the lunchroom and asked for a show of hands for those who agreed with her. Those who raised their hands = "liking" on FB. |
OP, sounds like you found yourself a lawyer to take your case pro bono! |
Op, imagine you employer made a fb post about your negative qualities, and employees "liked" it. Would you be okay with that? Would you want to work in that kind of environment? |
You sound like everything people hate about lawyers. Who's going to protect employers from litigious ambulance chaser idiots like you? Common sense says if you go complain about your employer on social media and your employer sees it, your employer is within their rights to fire you. You make it sound like she has a right to a job. |
If this is protected activity, be sure to take screen shots of the original post and the likes. |