Advertisement

May 20, 2013

Employers Requesting Facebook Access May Face Federal Consequences

Add the United States Senate to the growing list of legislative bodies considering new laws that would ban employers from requiring job applicants to turn over their Facebook usernames and passwords as part of the background investigation process. As the number of stories of applicants rejected or employees being “Facebook-fired” has grown, savvy social media users have adapted by increasing their privacy settings to the point where approximately 3 out of 4 Facebook pages hide information from public view.

Deprived of the treasure trove of information contained on a job applicant’s Facebook page, some employers have started asking for access to job applicants’ social networking accounts as part of the interview process. The requests have taken a number of forms, from requiring disclosure of passwords, to “friending” HR or the hiring manager, to requiring a live log-in during the interview. While privacy advocates have analogized such requests to requiring employees to turn over their house keys, this overloooks the fact that passwords can be changed, or managers “de-friended” after the interview. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that some privacy issues are implicated by employers who search social media accounts that are not otherwise publicly available.

Even without the proposed federal legislation expressly banning this kind of pre-hire screening, adopting such a hiring policy is risky. The federal Stored Communications Act prohibits the access of electronic communications — which would include Facebook postings — without the user’s authorization. That authorization must be freely given and not coerced. At least one case, Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, has ruled that a management request for login information and passwords to otherwise private employee social media accounts can be coercive and violative of the Stored Communications Act. In addition, there are risks to learning information about a candidate the hiring manager may later prefer not to have known (such as age, race, disability, religion, or genetic information).

We will be closely watching Congress and state legislatures as they work on legislation addressing these issues.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Peter Hall focuses his practice on labor and employment law with an emphasis on litigation matters. He counsels both large and small employers on a variety of labor and employment issues, including avoidance of discrimination and retaliation claims, compliance with disability and medical leave requirements, wage and hour issues, employee termination, restrictive covenants, union avoidance, and elections and records retention. Peter has counseled and defended employers before state administrative agencies in Georgia and other states as well as before federal agencies, including the EEOC and...

678-553-7330

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.