July 25, 2014

Privacy and Security Issues for 2013 (Second of a series): What to Expect in the Employment Arena

Our series over the next 10 days will highlight the top issues, as we see them, in privacy and security for 2013. Yesterday, we looked at the increase in cybcersecurity disclosure by public companies, triggered by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Cybersecurity Guidance.

As more and more employees take to social media to conduct business, questions remain about how, if at all, employers may legally regulate and monitor employees’ conduct on social media. For example, employees use LinkedIn, not just for networking, but to conduct business – whether mining potential sales contacts and growing pipelines.  But who owns the contacts and what can employers tell employees about how to conduct themselves while mining them?  And what happens when an employee leaves?  Can the employee take “their” contacts on LinkedIn or does the employer “own” those contacts? Is ownership truly in question if an employee uses LinkedIn to obtain the contacts at the employer’s behest, utilizing the employer’s resources and while on the employer’s payroll?  These are questions some courts are beginning to address.

Related to this issue is the National Labor Relations Board’s growing interest in defining what employers with unionized and non-unionized workforces can and cannot do with respect to limiting communications in the workplace. The NLRB says that employees may air grievances about wages and working conditions without employer restriction – note the now infamous “Facebook” firings and related cases.  The NLRB has also invalidated employer social media policies for failing to comply with the National Labor Relations Act.  Twitter seems to be the next natural stop for the NLRB’s growing influence.  Many people “tweet” at their employer’s behest and with their employer’s blessings. What happens when the employee strays from the script? And who has the time and energy to undertake the “community curation” required to keep the employer’s finger on the pulse of these communications in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner?

Then, of course, there is the issue of an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s use of social media in the first instance.  In order to protect the corporate reputation, prohibit unlawful competitive activity, including the theft of trade secrets, or to affirmatively comply with certain government regulations, some employers now require employees (and prospective employees) to provide their social media passwords or other account information.  Fourteen state legislatures (like California) have recently enacted laws prohibiting this practice, and other states are likely to follow suit.  Social media privacy bills are under consideration in Missouri, Texas, and other jurisdictions. Whether a particular state prohibits this practice or not, employers must give serious thought before implementing (or continuing to implement) this practice.  Specifically, they must be mindful of the “Big Brother” perception and the potential exposure to claims under the anti-discrimination laws, labor laws, and state privacy laws.

In 2013, employers, employees, lawmakers, regulatory authorities and courts will continue to struggle to strike the right balance between privacy, corporate culture, ownership of business information, free expression, and creativity. Recommendation for action in 2013:  If your business has a social media policy, review it in light of emerging state laws and the NLRB cases.   If your business does not have a social media policy, 2013 is the time to take another look.

See part one of this Series:  Privacy and Security Issues for 2013 (First of a series): The SEC Will Require Greater Disclosure Related to Data Security Risks and Breaches

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Jennifer Rubin, Labor, Employment, Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm

Jennifer helped launch Mintz Levin’s greater metropolitan Employment, Labor & Benefits Practice 10 years ago. She regularly handles significant employment litigation matters, including trial, administrative agency, and appellate work relating to Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions, wage and hour class actions, discrimination matters, privacy litigation, noncompete litigation, and trade secrets work.

She leverages her first-seat trial experience to deliver practical employment advice to the corporate community. Jennifer also represents C-level executives and...


About the Author

Michael S. Arnold, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Labor Law Attorney

Michael represents clients in connection with a variety of complex employment litigation matters, including pretrial, trial, and appellate work; administrative proceedings; and arbitrations and mediations relating to wage and hour, discrimination, noncompete, trade secret, general contract disputes, and other employee-related disputes. 

He regularly advises clients regarding employee performance, retention and separation issues, and compliance with discrimination, wage and hour, family and medical leave, workers’ compensation, disability, and other employment laws and...


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 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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.