Posts tagged Social Media.

In poetry, because we are classy here.

The freedom of speech afforded by the First Amendment is remarkably broad. Several categories of speech, including even “hate speech,” are afforded varying degrees of protection.

However, the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is not without limits, even for public sector employees. Governmental employees who voice their opinions — even on matters of legitimate public concern – are well served to choose their words, as well as the times and forums in which they communicate those words, very carefully.

Just ask Michael Todd Snipes, a former law enforcement captain for the Beach Safety and Ocean Rescue Department in Volusia County, Florida. Capt. Snipes was fired for making racially insensitive comments on his Facebook page and in group text messages sent to several of his fellow officers.

In freedom of speech cases, the context in which a thought or idea is communicated often matters a great deal. Although there is never a good time to make racially insensitive remarks, Capt. Snipes’ timing was particularly ill-considered.

Must-see ConstangyTV! The September edition of ConstangyTV’s “Close-Up on Workplace Law” is on YouTube, and you will not want to miss it. Host Leigh Tyson talks with Jon Yarbrough about social media in the workplace, including social media horror stories and what employers can do about them, the restrictions that have been imposed on social media policies by the National Labor Relations Board, and how that might change now that we have a Republican majority on the Board. To save you a long, grueling trip to our YouTube site, here it is:

Trump’s 8 zillionth* travel ban: what employers need to know. President Trumpissued a new travel ban “proclamation” on Sunday, and the excellent Will Krasnow of our Boston Office has read it and explains it all for us in this Immigration Dispatch.

*I might be exaggerating.

Image Credit: From flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jelene Morris.

Every now and then, I am told that it's unfair for employers to take action against employees Rocky Balboawho misbehave off duty.

"No it isn't," I reply.

Although I wouldn't recommend firing everybody who gets in trouble away from work and outside work hours, sometimes the behavior is so awful that you just have to.

Exhibit A: Colleen Campbell, former news production employee and occasional ...

I'm going to have to make this a regular series.Dog Writer.flickrCC.Canine-to-Five

A few weeks ago, I posted about an "Ask Amy" column involving a bullying boss, which I thought had really poor employment law advice. (To her credit, Amy posted not one, but two, corrections not long afterward.)

Last week, Karla Miller of the "Work Advice" column in The Washington Post -- who is a bona fide "HR advice" columnist, and a very ...

Last week, we talked about employment investigations. This week, I'd like to talk about what employers do with the information they gathered during the investigation. There are two main tasks:

Thinking.flickrCC.RobertCouse-Baker
"Hmmmm . . ."

No. 1: Figure out what probably happened.

No. 2: Decide what action to take based on No. 1.

It's almost impossible to generalize about No. 1 because the results will vary ...

The May edition of ConstangyTV's Close-Up on Workplace Law has just been released. Host Leigh Tyson -- who is now co-chair of our Labor Relations Practice Group in addition to being a YouTube star --  interviews Mel Haas, veteran labor lawyer and head of our Macon Office, about what employers can do to create a satisfied workforce. You will not want to miss this ...

FBI Logo.flickrCC.By-Your-Command
For illustrative purposes only. This post is not political - I promise!

What makes a workplace investigation so good that you just can't wait to show the EEOC investigator what you did? And you're like, "Plaintiff's lawyer, take us to court -- please!"

All right, maybe nothing would make it that good, but here are nine things employers can do to ensure that they at least won't be ashamed of ...

An article by Lauren Weber and Rachel Feintzeig in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal caught a lot of attention -- it was about companies that have made the decision to do without a Human Resources function.

The idea drew some positive response on Twitter:

 

The National Labor Relations Board has taken the position that many garden-variety employment policies violate the law. These rulings place employers in a “Catch 22”—if employers rescind the policies, they could have trouble defending themselves in unemployment cases, wrongful termination lawsuits, or before government agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity ...

Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act). 
Continue Reading

Subscribe

Archives

Back to Page