In the current digital era, where social media channels provide a main avenue for personal expression, employees might question how their online actions could affect their careers. While individuals typically experience a sense of liberty when sharing on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, it is crucial to recognize that their online conduct can result in serious outcomes, including possible job loss. Legal and employment professionals highlight the necessity of being aware of company policies and the protections—or their absence—that apply to workers.
In today’s digital age, where social media platforms serve as a key outlet for personal expression, employees may wonder how their online activity could impact their professional lives. While workers often feel a sense of freedom when posting on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, the reality is that their online behavior can carry significant consequences, including job termination. Legal experts and employment specialists emphasize the importance of understanding workplace policies and the protections—or lack thereof—that exist for employees.
Jeffrey Hirsch, who teaches labor and employment law at the University of North Carolina, outlines the general legal structure. “An employer can dismiss an employee for almost any reason, including negative remarks on social media, unless particular protections are in place,” he states. This extensive power highlights the necessity of being aware of personal rights and comprehending organizational policies before sharing content that might be seen as negative or unsuitable.
Protected versus Unprotected
The potential repercussions an employee may encounter due to their social media activity are influenced by various elements, such as their employment agreement and the content of their post. In the United States, most employees work under “at-will” contracts. This allows either the employer or the employee to end the employment relationship at any moment for almost any reason, provided it does not breach anti-discrimination laws or other legal protections. Montana stands out as the sole state mandating that employers must have a valid reason for dismissing an employee, presenting a distinct exception to the at-will employment concept.
For employees in other regions, specific forms of speech receive protection under legislation like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This federal law protects employees’ rights to partake in “concerted activities,” covering dialogues about workplace conditions, pay, or employment policies. Catherine Fisk, an employment law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, emphasizes that this protection may encompass social media posts, especially if the employee is representing coworkers or discussing common concerns.
“The legal standard for obtaining protection under the law is fairly minimal,” Fisk states, noting that even something as basic as liking a coworker’s post can be included. However, the conversation must be specifically connected to workplace issues to qualify for protection. General complaints, like labeling a boss as “incompetent” or critiquing an employer without linking it to employment conditions, are unlikely to meet the requirements.
“The legal threshold for claiming protection under the law is relatively low,” Fisk explains, adding that even actions as simple as liking a coworker’s post can fall under this category. However, the discussion must be directly related to workplace concerns to meet the criteria for protection. General grievances, such as calling a boss “incompetent” or complaining about an employer without tying it to workplace conditions, are unlikely to qualify.
Company guidelines and limits
Numerous employers establish social media guidelines to direct employees’ online conduct, but these regulations must comply with legal norms. Businesses cannot restrict employees from expressing valid concerns regarding workplace rules or conditions. Labor attorney Mark Kluger states that excessively broad policies aiming to prohibit all negative remarks about the company are prone to being contested.
“The National Labor Relations Board has determined that these types of policies are overly limiting as they might discourage employees from exercising their rights,” Kluger clarifies. Nonetheless, companies are allowed to implement rules that prohibit the spread of false information, protect trade secrets, or prevent defamatory remarks.
Kluger also mentions that companies frequently suggest employees consider how their online posts might affect the company’s image. For instance, employees are generally advised against criticizing competitors or expressing opinions that could negatively impact the organization they work for. Certain policies also mandate employees to specify that their opinions are individual and do not reflect the company’s perspective.
Kluger also notes that businesses often advise employees to consider how their posts might impact the company’s reputation. For example, workers are typically discouraged from disparaging competitors or sharing opinions that could reflect poorly on the organization they represent. Some policies also require employees to clarify that their views are personal and do not represent the company’s stance.
Steps to Take if Terminated Over a Social Media Post
Those who feel they were wrongfully dismissed because of protected activity have the option to lodge a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This federal body examines cases and assesses whether an employer has infringed labor laws. If the NLRB deems the claim valid and the issue remains unresolved, it will initiate legal proceedings for the employee at no expense to them.
Employees who believe they were unfairly terminated due to protected activity can file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This federal agency investigates claims and determines whether an employer has violated labor laws. If the NLRB finds merit in the case and the dispute cannot be resolved, it will pursue legal action on behalf of the employee at no cost to them.
“The unfortunate reality is that many workers are unaware of their rights, and even fewer know how to navigate the process of filing a complaint,” Hirsch says. For those who do proceed, the process can be lengthy, but a successful outcome may include reinstatement and back pay.
However, not all cases are clear-cut. While the NLRB often sides with employees in instances of blatant retaliation, complex or borderline cases may be influenced by the political leanings of the board members. This could result in varying interpretations of what constitutes protected activity.
Navigating the gray areas
“Whenever societal matters dominate public conversation, there’s an increase in instances where employees share views that might conflict with their employers’ values or guidelines,” Kluger explains. “This creates a situation that places both employees and companies in difficult positions.”
Simultaneously, companies are increasingly vigilant in observing employees’ social media activities, not only for posts specifically about the company but also for content that might negatively impact the organization. This has sparked debates regarding the extent to which employers should be permitted to oversee personal conduct outside of working hours.
At the same time, businesses are becoming more proactive in monitoring employees’ social media activity, not just for posts directly related to the company but also for content that could reflect poorly on the organization. This has led to debates about the extent to which employers should be allowed to police personal behavior conducted outside of work hours.
Striking a balance
Ultimately, the connection between social media and employment is changing, necessitating adaptation from both employees and businesses. Companies must find a balance between safeguarding their image and respecting employees’ rights, while employees need to be careful and considerate in their online engagements.
Kluger explains, “Social media has empowered everyone with a voice, yet with that voice comes accountability. Employees should keep in mind that their words can impact not only themselves but also their employers.”
As Kluger puts it, “Social media has given everyone a voice, but with that voice comes responsibility. Employees should remember that their words can have consequences, not just for themselves but for their employers as well.”
In an era where personal and professional lives are increasingly intertwined, the importance of navigating this digital terrain with care cannot be overstated. Whether through clearer policies, better education on workers’ rights, or open communication, finding common ground will be essential for fostering mutual understanding in the workplace.
