Fighting Negative On-Line Reviews by Ex-Employees

Q.  A former employee has posted a negative review about our company on a social media website. Is there anything we can do about it?

A.  While social media is a powerful tool for promoting your company’s brand, negative reviews can be equally powerful in affecting the company’s reputation. When the negative review is by an employee or former employee, the review is particularly galling.

Unfortunately, employers have little recourse. While many employees have social media policies prohibiting employees from commenting about the company, the NLRB does not allow such policies to chill an employee’s ability to complain about the terms and conditions of employment on social media.  Moreover, the company’s ability to control social media activity ceases once the employee leaves the company or is terminated.

But there are a few things you can do. First, be sure to set an alert so that you are aware of all comments made about the company online.

If the post is made by a current employee, use this as a red flag that something may be amiss about the employment relationship. Meet with the employee and give him or her a chance to air his or her concerns.  Then ask the employee if he or she would be willing to take down the post and address the issue internally instead.

If you are offering a severance package to a departing employee, consider adding a nondisparagement clause to any separation agreement that would prohibit the former employee from making negative comments or otherwise denigrating the company’s reputation. Consider paying the severance over time, rather than in a lump sum, to create a disincentive for the former employee to violate the nondisparagement clause.

Assuming there was no written agreement and it is a former employee who is doing the negative posting, you will have to consider whether it makes more sense to ignore the post or respond to it. If you do choose to respond, be careful not to personally attack the individual, but instead focus on the comment and set the record straight.  While it is not a battle easily won, depending on how damaging the post is, you may also consider speaking with legal counsel about the possibility of an action for defamation.  Moreover, if the negative comment also reveals company trade secrets, you will need to analyze the situation with your counsel and consider sending a cease and desist letter and filing suit.

Finally, it is always best to take a proactive approach. Remind employees of the powerful impact social media can have on your business.  Encourage your employees to become a “brand ambassador” and  “like” the company on social media and share company achievements.  After all, a negative comment will have much less of an impact if it is surrounded by lots of positive, reputation-enhancing messages in cyberspace.

–Tracey E. Diamond

Profanity-Laced Social Media Posts May Be Permissible in the Context of a Union Organizing Campaign

Q.  Can I fire an employee for making disparaging comments about the company and its supervisors on social media?

A.  According to a recent Second Circuit opinion, if the social media post was made in the context of union organizing activity, then the answer likely is no. The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) prohibits employers from terminating an employee based on that employee’s union-related activity. If the employee’s protected activity rises to the level of “opprobrious” or abusive conduct, however, it could lose the protection of the NLRA.   Nonetheless, the standard for a finding that the employee engaged in “opprobrious” or abusive conduct is quite high.

In NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, an employee posted a Facebook message encouraging other employees to vote for the union and referred to his supervisor as a “loser” and a “motherf*cker.” The employee even went to so far as to disparage the supervisor’s family, posting:  “F*** his mother and his entire f***ing family!!!!”

The NLRB found that the comment did not rise to the standard of “opprobrious” conduct because it was made in the context of an upcoming union election. The Second Circuit agreed. According to the court, even though the employee’s message was dominated by vulgar attacks on the company’s supervisor and his family, the “subject matter” of the message included workplace concerns – management’s allegedly disrespectful treatment of employees and the union election. The court also noted that the company had demonstrated hostility toward the employees’ union activities, including threatening to rescind benefits and/or fire employees who voted for the union and enforcing a “no talk” rule preventing employees from discussing the union.

Further, the court considered it important that the company had tolerated profanity in the workplace on a daily basis, issuing only five warnings in six years and not discharging anyone for using profanity prior to the employee at issue. In addition, the court said that the supervisors, including the one whom the Facebook post was directed at, cursed at employees including using the “f” word on a daily basis. The court concluded that “it is striking that Perez – who had been a server at Pier Sixty for thirteen years – was fired for profanities two days before the Union election when no employee had ever before been sanctioned (much less fired) for profanity.”

Finally, and most disturbingly for companies trying to maintain their online reputations, the court concluded that, while Facebook posts may be visible to the entire world, “Perez’s outburst was not in the immediate presence of customers nor did it disrupt the catering event.” Calling the case as sitting at the “outer bounds of protected, union-related comments,” the Second Circuit upheld the NLRB decision.

So, what does this mean for companies trying to maintain a professional workplace?

First, it crucial to apply discipline consistently.  If Pier Sixty had discharged other employees for using profanity outside of the union-organizing campaign – and prohibited its supervisors from cursing at staff – it would have had a much stronger argument that the Facebook message should not be tolerated.

Second, employers should tread carefully – and consult with counsel – before disciplining employees for social media activity, particularly in the context of union activity.

Tracey E. Diamond

Layoffs and Business Closures: What to Consider Before Taking Action

Q: Unfortunately, I need to lay off some employees, and possibly close my business. What steps do I need to take to ensure I am in compliance with legal obligations?

A: There are many factors and obligations to consider when laying off multiple employees and/or closing a business. It is best to consider these aspects as early as possible, even if you think layoff/closure is only a possibility.

Obligation for Advance Notice

One of the most important steps is to determine whether the layoff/closure is covered by The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), or a state equivalent. The WARN Act is a federal law, and applies to employers with 100 or more employees.  Employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and/or who work less than 20 hours per week are not counted toward the 100.

The WARN Act requires covered employers to give 60 days’ advance notice of a mass layoff or site closure to employees, the State dislocated worker unit, and the chief elected official of the local government unit in which the layoff occurs. For mass layoffs, employers must give notice if 500 or more employees will be laid off during a 30-day period.  Employers must also give notice if 50 or more employees are laid off, and that group makes up at least one-third of the employer’s workforce.  Similarly, for site shutdowns, employers must give notice if a shutdown will result in an employment loss for 50 or more employees during any 30-day period.  An employment loss is defined as: (1) a termination; (2) a layoff exceeding 6 months; or (3) a reduction in hours of more than 50% in each month of any 6-month period.

Many states impose additional requirements upon employers. In New York, for example, the state WARN Act applies to employers with 50 or more full-time employees in New York State, and covered employers are required to provide 90 days of advance notice.  The obligation for notice is triggered by a layoff of 25 or more employees if that comprises at least one-third of full-time workers, or layoffs of 250 or more full-time employees at a business with 50 or more employees.  New Jersey’s rules mirror the federal law, but the penalties are different.  Pennsylvania does not have any state law requirement.

Ensuring No Discrimination in Layoffs

In addition to WARN Act considerations, when planning a layoff involving multiple employees, it is important to ensure that the company has documented, well-thought out reasons for the layoff, and that it has protected itself against potential claims of discrimination. One helpful way to do so is to analyze the protected categories that the laid-off employees fall under, and determine whether there is any disparate impact upon one particular group.  For example, would the layoff impact more women than men?  Would it impact more workers over 40 than under 40?

When courts examine claims of discrimination in a layoff, they often look at the following factors:

  • whether the business criteria utilized to select employees for termination makes sense, and whether that criteria was applied consistently;
  • whether procedures in personnel policies related to terminations were followed;
  • whether the employees’ responsibilities were fully eliminated – if not, what happened to the responsibilities; and
  • whether anyone was hired to fulfill the terminated employees’ duties.

It is important for employers to think about these types of factors before a layoff is implemented to ensure that the layoff is non-discriminatory, and can be vigorously defended if the need arises.

Proper Payout and Recordkeeping

Prior to the effective date for a layoff/termination, employers should ensure that they have reviewed all obligations (both legal and under employer-specific policies, such as handbooks and employment agreements) relating to termination pay. For example, some employee handbooks provide that unused, accrued PTO will be paid out upon termination, and some employees may be owed severance pay under an employment agreement.  When drafting severance agreements (which employers may want to consider regardless of whether they are obligated by contract to pay severance), employers should ensure that such agreements comply with legal requirements for releases, as well as any requirements by third parties such as insurance carriers.  For example, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”) provides that for a valid release of age discrimination claims, the release must contain specific language, and the employee must be given a specific amount of time to consider the release and revoke their signature.  Employers should also be careful to abide by state laws governing the timing of final pay.

Employers are obligated to maintain many types of records, including employment records, post-layoff/closure. While recordkeeping obligations vary by state, generally they range from 3 to 7 years.

– Jessica Rothenberg