Can a tweet be an unfair labor practice? On November 10, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entertained oral arguments to determine just that. The tweet at issue: “[F]irst one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” According to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), this tweet, penned by the publisher in charge of an online magazine, violated sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NRLA”).
Proposed California law to further limit settlement confidentiality
During May of 2021, the California Senate passed a law further prohibiting the use of broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions in agreements between a company and its employees. The new law expands on a 2018 law inspired by the #metoo movement, which banned settlement agreements preventing an employee from disclosing facts underlying claims for sexual harassment, or information about unlawful sexual harassment in the workplace. Now, Senate Bill 331, also known as the “Silenced No More Act,” aims to severely limit confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements arising out of any claim for harassment (not just sexual harassment) or discrimination in the workplace.
California legislature takes aim at social media user conduct
In the last week of March 2021, a bill was introduced in the California assembly that would require social media platforms to publicly disclose the specific user conduct that will get users temporarily or permanently banned from those sites—including online hate, disinformation, extremism, harassment, and foreign interference.
Defamatory social media posts may establish personal jurisdiction in California
In recent posts, we have discussed how employee social media use may subject California companies to liability for defamation. Now, a recent California court of appeals case found that social media conduct by out-of-state users was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in California courts.
California aims to keep children off social media – UPDATE
We had previously written about a bill the California legislature passed that would bar a social media company from opening an account for anyone it “actually knows” is under the age of 13, absent parental consent. On September 29, 2020,
California aims to keep children off social media
In September 2020, the California legislature sent a bill to the Governor’s desk which would bar a social media company from opening an account for anyone it “actually knows” is under the age of 13, absent parental consent. The bill, passed with bipartisan support within the legislature, aims to bring social media companies in line with existing federal and California law requiring parental consent before a minor’s personal information is obtained online or sold. (The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) prohibits companies from selling a minor’s personal information without obtaining the authorization of the consumer’s parent or guardian if the business has actual knowledge the consumer is less than 16 years old.)
CEO’s social media posts about former employee actionable as defamation
The California court of appeals recently allowed a defamation claim to proceed against a company’s CEO for libelous social media posts made about a former employee after her termination. According to her complaint, the employee had been the company’s only female senior executive during her tenure. Following a brief, rocky stint with the company, the employee was terminated, and she filed a lawsuit against the company, asserting claims for gender discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
Court rules that reasonable expectation of privacy exists in social media users’ internet browsing data
Social media users may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their internet browsing data, according to a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court.
Users of a social media platform brought a class action against its owner, alleging that the company tracked users’ browsing histories when they visited third-party websites, and then compiled those browsing histories into personal profiles which were sold to advertisers to generate revenue. The company did not dispute that it engaged in these tracking practices even after its users had logged out of the site. Plaintiffs complaint alleged, among other claims, violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), and common law invasion of privacy.
Parties May Provide Notice to Class Members Through Social Media
With the prevalence of employment and labor class action lawsuits, particularly those based on alleged wage and hour violations, the nuances of defending those suits and administering potential settlements are paramount to California employers. One lesser-discussed feature of the class action process is the notice requirement to class members. Throughout the lifespan of the action, potential and actual class members must receive notice at a number of pivotal stages. These stages include, of course, those events closer to the end of the action such as proposed settlements and settlement distributions, but the notice issue can also arise relatively early in discovery (e.g., when the parties participate in a Belaire-West notice process to employees).
Federal District Court in California finds favoring younger, “social media savvy” employees may constitute age-based harassment
In recent posts, we have discussed how social media use and the enforcement of social media policies can have major implications in wage and hour lawsuits against U.S. employers. Now, a recent case in U.S. District Court in California suggests that social media can also play a role in discrimination suits.