Employment Social Media

Running head: EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL MEDIA 1

Employment Social Media

Case 1: Weigand v. NLRB, Jd Supra Internet (D.C Circuit May 04, 2015).

Question 1

The lawsuit comprised of the District of Colombia Circuit, Weigand, a non-union member and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The parties are related regarding labor relations, Weigand being the plaintiff, NLRB the defendant and the D.C. Circuit the arbitrator.

Question 2

The D.C. Circuit had declined to hold the NLRB liable for failing to eliminate comments that were contemptuous and purportedly threatening on a Facebook page that was maintained only by the members of the union. This case is related to my issue of employee retention as it serves as one of the many reasons that contribute to employees terminating their contracts with their employers (Weigand v. NLRB, Jd Supra Internet (D.C Circuit May 04, 2015). In this case, Weigand being a non-union member would feel like she does not have equal rights to other employees merely because of membership with the NLRB. It is, therefore, possible that employees who find themselves in this scenario will apparently contemplate quitting their jobs for better endeavors or careers.

Question 3

The court denied Weigand, a non-union employee a chance to petition for reviewing the order given by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to dismiss his charge. According to the court, there had been little of no indication that NLRB officials or rather agents had posted the alleged contemptuous comments. It further argued that in such a case, it only possible that union members alone could post or read comments on the Facebook page. The court was obliged to rule against the wish of the plaintiff citing the provisions of labor relations as well as media regulations entrenched in the contemporary universal media laws.

Question 4

Since the Court declined to delineate whether the act of postings these controversial comments would be considered as a threat if the agents of the union had made them, it set a precedent that in future union members may post any comment regardless of the insinuation. In fact, the court reiterated that the NLRB was never banned from ever finding a union member guilty of any unfair labor practice especially for postings a comment on closed internet locations (Weigand v. NLRB, Jd Supra Internet (D.C Circuit May 04, 2015). This will make future litigation more controversial as there might come a time when union members will post infuriating comments against fellow union members and the court will be in a compromising situation ruling the case.

Question 5

Although the court made a ruling in favor of the NLRB, one remains to wonder whether the act of posting such demeaning comments would be lawful if the perpetrator had not necessarily posted on a social media site. Besides, the question arises again regarding the perpetrator being exonerated for posting comments on a restricted internet site. One wonders whether the court could have found the culprit culpable of a crime had he posted similar comments on the non-closed internet site.

Question 6

This case will be useful in my final paper since it will be listed among various circumstances that would compel an employee to seek the transfer from one organization to another. It will also be the basis for my argument against unfair rulings with which the plaintiffs had to learn to cope.

Case II: Sweet v. LinkedIn Corp, 1 Internet 111 (California federal court June 01, 2015).

Question 1

This suit comprised the Californian federal court, the LinkedIn users, and their potential employers.

Question 2

Certain employers viewed the social media accounts such as LinkedIn, which harbored numerous job applicants as a way of assessing whether they would source better employees. Even after legal experts had cautioned that such employers might access critical information of applicants, which could eventually form a basis for claiming having made employment resolutions on verboten grounds. It is for this reasons that some job applicant LinkedIn users launched a suit against their envisaged employers claiming to have been denied employment even after these potential employers had made a step of contacting them after identifying them through the LinkedIns Reference Search Function (Sweet v. LinkedIn Corp, 1 Internet 111 (California federal court June 01, 2015). This issue is related to the issue I selected in week 1 as it reflects the aspirations that some job seekers usually have about other organizations. Particularly, many social media users in the contemporary society would browse sites in which they hope to get employment and even submit their credential beforehand thinking that would work for them. Later, they come to be disillusioned when they learn that exposure of their personal information has indeed become their detriment.

Question 3

A Californian based federal court was compelled to overrule a presumed class action in line with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) raised by the LinkedIn users. Supposedly, the LinkedIn user had been denied chances of employment even after their potential employers whom they identified via the reference search function of the LinkedIn had contacted them. The court took the task of explaining in detail the reason why search results had not constituted a consumer report. According to the court, the reference information had been derived exclusively from the LinkedIns transactions with the respective plaintiffs but not derived from third parties. In this case, the LinkedIn was not regarded as a consumer-reporting agency under this Act (Sweet v. LinkedIn Corp, 1 Internet 111 (California federal court June 01, 2015). Besides, the court also argued that the list of conceivable references was neither used nor intended to be used during employment procedures.

Question 4

Following the court ruling against the plaintiffs, it is probable that the decision has set a precedent that potential employers will keep misusing the information of job seekers on social media other for their selfish interests. It is possible that employment seekers will end up with much disappointment than ever before.

Question 5

One remains to wonder what the court ruling could have been if the plaintiff and the defendant swapped positions. What if the employers are the ones who had launched a suit claiming their information had been misused by potential employment seekers? This case would seriously be controversial.

Question 6

This case will assist me in making a thorough diagnosis of several plights of employment seekers on social media. It will also send a signal of what to expect in the present day media platforms while seeking employment.

Case III: Hannah v. Northeastern State University, 42 Internet 352 (Oklahoma-based court Oct. & Nov. 06, 2016).

Question 1

The suit comprises of an Oklahoma-based federal court, an employer of Indian origin in the Northeastern State University together with Hannah the complainant. The complainant had been working under the defendant in the same department where claims of discrimination as well as hostilities are reported to have occurred.

Question 2

There were heated comments on Facebook lamenting that the Indian boss was made the chair of the department and several other Facebook posts on racism by some professors who got a chance to vote on the employees tenure (Hannah v. Northeastern State University, 42 Internet 352 (Oklahoma-based court Oct. & Nov. 06, 2016). There is evidence that the vote was rejected, as there was prevalent hostility in the department. This issue is identical to the issue I selected in week 1 since it is among several circumstances that drive employees out of a job.

Question 3

Unfortunately, the federal court of Oklahoma denied summary judgment regarding the claim of a hostile work environment. Similarly, the retaliation claims of the employee also arose, partly since the posts on Facebook generated a causal link between the tenure denial and the plaintiffs initial complaints of racial discrimination.

Question 4

The decision of the court may have set a wrong precedent that will trigger hostility among employers against employees of different races. For this reason, the future litigations are likely to be convoluted with such issues as media evidence of discrimination from social media, which the courts may not be ready to validate.

Question 5

This case leaves several questions unanswered as the court failed to substantiate the fate of the sadist employer of the Indian origin. One wonders why the court could not validate the plaintiffs claims even when there was explicit evidence about the heinous act of harassment and discrimination (Hannah v. Northeastern State University, 42 Internet 352 (Oklahoma-based court Oct. & Nov. 06, 2016). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the defendant continued to serve as the boss in that department or there were adjustments made in the Universities protocol.

Question 6

This case will no doubt be useful in my final paper since it will form part of several cases that can frustrate the efforts of retaining employees in any given organizational department.

EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL MEDIA 2