The issue about employee social media privacy rights has been addressed again, but the circumstances are such that this case may not add much clarity to the matter.
Janis Roberts sued her former employer CareFlite for unlawful termination and for invasion of her privacy. Roberts was "friends" on Facebook with another CareFlite employee. Roberts posted on his Facebook wall that she had transported a patient that needed restraining and that she had wanted to slap the patient.
The sister of Sheila Calvert, a compliance officer with CareFlite, saw the post and told her sister about the communication. Calvert sent a message to Roberts saying, in part, "I just wanted to remind you that the public sees your posts...you could be looking at a suspension of your EMS license and fines...I am trying to help you realize that people out there are losing their jobs and livelihood (sic) because of such posts and I don't want to see that happen to you...I hope you will consider removing that post."
When Roberts countered that the patient needed "an attitude adjustment", Calvert responded that Roberts' words might be a violation of Texas law [Rule 157.36(b)(28) of the Texas Administrative Code] that states that you cannot engage in activities which might erode the public's confidence in the Emergency Medical Services. Roberts' retort might be best described as dismissive.
Apparently not satisfied with her sister's handling of the situation, Calvert's sister sent an email outlining the post to the CEO of CareFlite. Roberts was subsequently terminated.
Roberts sued for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy. In later pleadings, Roberts argued that the NLRB has prohibited employers from restraining employees from discussing the conditions of their workplace.
However, the court found the real issue was whether the company intruded upon Roberts' privacy in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person. Not feeling that evidence provided supported Roberts' position, the court ruled against her.
Unfortunately, the case was not limited to a decision about social media rights. It is complicated by a state law that prohibits one from engaging in activities that might cause the public to lose trust in the state's EMS system. Further muddying the decisional waters - the court appeared to decide the case not so much on the issue of privacy rights, but on what appears to be their dissatisfaction with the quality of Roberts' brief.
The lesson learned: the courts continue to deny social media participants a special privacy right.
Disclaimer:
This site was established to provide information about the law, designed to educate users about issues in which they may have an interest. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although I go to great lengths to make sure the information provided is accurate and useful, I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that the information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment