September 2013 | The Staffing/HR Issue
The Dos and Don'ts of Conducting a Legal, Yet Helpful, Social Media Background Screen
Social media has infiltrated most aspects of the employer/employee relationship. It now impacts recruitment, the drafting of employment policies, employee communications, complaint reporting and investigation procedures, employee discipline considerations, and what employers look at when make hiring decisions. In fact, in 2011, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 56 percent of employers reported using social media in hiring.
In June 2013, a nationwide survey by CareerBuilder found that more than two in five hiring managers (43 percent) who vetted applicants online did not hire an applicant based on information found online. The top reasons for disqualifying a candidate:
On its face, this 43 percent figure appears inconsistent with On Device Research’s recent report, which found that one in 10 people between 16 and 34 years of age reported being rejected from a job because of content about them on social media. The inconsistency between the 43 percent of hiring managers who reported eliminating candidates based on social media content and the 10 percent of young people who reported they were rejected because of social media is probably best explained by the fact that most employers do not inform an applicant why he or she has been rejected.
An example of the rare case where an applicant was told his social media antics cost him a job is Hunter Monk. Before sitting down for a Skype interview with an investment firm, Monk tweeted a picture of himself dressed for his interview. He was wearing a suit and tie on top and only underwear waist down. The employer saw the picture on Twitter and rescinded Monk’s job offer and told Monk why.
Social media vetting is not all bad for applicants. CareerBuilder also reported that one in five hiring managers (19 percent) found information online that made a candidate more attractive or solidified their decision to extend a job offer.
In an interesting juxtaposition, North Carolina State University released “Big Five Personality Traits Reflected in Job Applicants' Social Media Postings,” that shows that companies that screen applicants via social media may misunderstand online behavior, causing them to eliminate good candidates. Of the personality traits reviewed (which included conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion), the study found no significant correlation between conscientiousness and an individual’s willingness to post content on Facebook about alcohol or drug use. As a result, some employers likely eliminate good, conscientious candidates based on a false belief about what social media activity says about applicants. This is especially true for companies looking to hire extroverts, as the study found them significantly more likely to post about drugs or alcohol on Facebook. The study did note one interesting correlation: those who rated high on agreeableness and conscientiousness were unlikely to “badmouth” or insult other people on Facebook. This indicates employers would be better served by eliminating candidates for badmouthing others, and not necessarily those who drink alcohol.
Misinterpreting information is just one risk employers face when vetting applicants through social media. Another is the potential to uncover information the employer is prohibited by law from considering in the hiring process, like information about the applicant’s race, gender, religion, or membership in some other protected class. If an employer obtains this type of information online, the cat is out of the bag. There is no way for the employer to un-see it and, more importantly, it is hard for the employer to demonstrate it did not use the prohibited information in its hiring decision.
In Gaskell v. University of Kentucky, No. CIV.A. 0909-244-KSF (E.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2010), the plaintiff successfully argued that the university denied him employment based on his religious affiliation, which it discovered online. In Gaskell, the university was searching for a director to oversee its new observatory. A member of the search committee researched the plaintiff online and discovered he had written an article on astronomy and the Bible. The committee member believed the article was evidence of plaintiff’s Christian faith and belief in creationism. In an e-mail, the search committee member wrote: “the reason we will not offer [plaintiff] the job is because of his religious beliefs…” Plaintiff was denied the job and sued for religious discrimination. The email was used by the court to deny the university’s motion for summary judgment, and the parties eventually settled.
In Neiman v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., No. 11-3404 (C.D. Ill. April 26, 2012), the plaintiff alleged he was not hired because of his age. The employer argued it could not have considered the plaintiff’s age because it did not know it when it made its decision. The plaintiff, however, countered that the employer must have known his age because he posted his college graduation year on his LinkedIn profile. This was enough to get the plaintiff past the employer’s motion to dismiss:
Plaintiff alleges…that during telephone interviews, [the company] did inquire about and confirm the year that Plaintiff and the candidate who was selected for the position each earned their degrees….It is not difficult to determine that someone who graduated from college in 1989 probably was over the age of 40 in 2010. This is enough to place [the company] on notice that [the plaintiff] is subject to the protection of the laws against age discrimination.
Social media vetting also poses a unique risk for employers under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1(a). GINA prohibits employers from obtaining an applicant’s “genetic information,” defined to include information about an individual’s family medical history. The final regulations provide that an employer may not “request…genetic information of an individual or a family member of the individual.” 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(a). The regulations specifically address the Internet, and define “request” to include “conducting an Internet search on an individual in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.” Id. Since the definition of “request” is so broad, GINA poses a significant risk to employers that may inadvertently obtain “genetic information” when using social media to vet applicants. For example, what if a hiring manager learns from an applicant’s public Facebook page that the employee is running in the Race for the Cure to support her mother who is suffering from breast cancer? The hiring manager has just learned the employee has a family history of breast cancer and has obtained protected “genetic information.” In cases like this and others, the regulations provide two exceptions:
With the high risk of uncovering prohibited information and of improperly using social media information, employers should take a few precautions to perform legal, yet helpful, social media background screen.
Sara H. Jodka is an attorney with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP in Columbus, Ohio. She can be reached at 614.227.2060 or email@example.com.
LAW PRACTICE TODAY
Micah U Buchdahl, HTMLawyers, Inc
Margaret M. DiBianca, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
Andrea Malone, White and Williams LLP
BOARD OF EDITORS
Janis Alexander, Ambrose Law Group LLC
David Ambrose, Ambrose Law Group LLC
Leah Beckham, BillBLAST
John Bowers, Fox Rothschild LLP
Margaret M. DiBianca, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
Amy Drushal, Trenam Kemker
Chase Edwards, Paul M. Hebert Law School, Louisiana State University
Nicholas Gaffney, Infinite Public Relations
Nancy Gimbol, Eastburn and Gray, P.C.
Richard Goldstein, Goldstein Patent Law
Katy Goshtasbi, KG Consulting Group Inc, d/b/a Puris Image
Alan Craig Haston, The Haston Law Firm, P.C.
William Henslee, Florida A&M University College of Law
Kathryn M Jakabcin, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
James Matsoukas, Pierce Atwood LLP
Lisa McBee, Roberta F. Farrell, LLC
Thomas "Jason" Smith, Duff & Phelps, LLC
Jay Roderik "Rod" Stephen, The Stephens Law Firm
Pegeen Turner, Turner IT Solutions, Inc.
Gabriela Vega, Vega Acosta Law Firm, Chtd.
James Zych, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.
Send us your feedback here.