On FMLA? Better Not Post Those Vacation Photos…

Lineberry v. Richards , E.D. Mich., No. 2:11-cv-13752-LPZ-MKM, 02/05/13

 

An RN was terminated upon her return from FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) leave for “dishonesty” when photos she posted on Facebook surfaced. She went on leave in the middle of winter, and posted photos of herself and her family vacationing in Mexico during that time. When she went on leave, her employer did know she had the vacation planned – and that she intended to use a wheelchair and was going to “take it easy.” Her physician indicated that the vacation would be more restful than her job, and would not interfere in her recovery. When she admitted to co-workers that she had not, in fact, used a wheelchair during her vacation (and admitted, apparently, that she lied to someone at the employer’s offices about having used a wheelchair), the company terminated her.

It sounded distinctly like the posting of photos during leave upset her co-workers, which prompted them to question her, which prompted her to lie (at least initially, and then admit lying). Maybe she would have been better off not posting at all. After all, it wasn’t the vacation itself that prompted her termination – it sounds like others felt she was “throwing it in their faces.” That Facebook Envy will get you every time…

Using Facebook to find fellow terrorists: A cautionary tale

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis plead guilty today to terrorism charges stemming from his attempt to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank here in NY.  Nafis’ attempt, if completed, could have caused serious damage.  Fortunately for us, Nasfis realized early on that he could not complete his task alone and so he turned to Facebook to recruit fellow terrorists.  Seems one of the Facebook friends he tried to recruit was a government informant who contacted officials.  Another example of why friending “faux friends” isn’t necessarily a good idea.

New York City Restaurants Banning Food Photography

Do you take pictures of your food at restaurants? Plan on taking a picture of your Valentine’s Day dinner? You might be banned from taking that picture this Valentine’s Day. This is because New York City restaurant owners are banning food photography by customers. The restaurant owners don’t want people  posting pictures of their food on social media sites.  Is this fair? Should the practice be banned?  Read the CBS News story here, and comment on this post with your thoughts.

Social Media Firms are Moving into the Middle East

Social Media firms are now increasing their presence in the Middle East. The companies hope to capitalize on the recent popularity of social media in the region.  They are asserting their presence via digital advertising. Digital advertising has traditionally not been used in the Middle East.  According to The New York Times, print advertising, and television advertising, have been the main methods of advertising.   It will interesting to follow whether digital advertising will take off in the Middle East. Click on this link to read The New York Times article about the topic.

More States Consider Social Media Privacy Bills

The concept of legislatively limiting employer access to employee social media traffic is gaining traction.  Legislators in Georgia, Montana and North Dakota are considering bills similar to the one already adopted by the Illinois legislature.  The bills would restrict employers from researching social media sights as a means of gaining additional insights about employees and/or employee candidates.  More information about the potential laws is available here.

Are these bills innovative or are they just a natural extension of the HR workplace rules that prohibit, say, asking a candidate is she is pregnant?

Taking a Break From Facebook

A recent survey by the Pew Research  Center  found that 61 percent of current Facebook users admitted to taking voluntary breaks from the site.  Reasons for a hiatus from the most popular social network in America include: a decrease in interest in the site; not having enough time to dedicate to updating and polishing their profiles; and the general idea that Facebook is simply a waste of time.  In addition, 4 percent of the surveyors cited that privacy and security concerns contributed to their departure.  Privacy concerns related to social media remain an evolving area of law, and it will be interesting to see if more Facebook users begin to delete their accounts due to this concern.  It should be noted that of those 4 percent, “those users eventually resumed their regular activity, another 20 percent of Facebook users admitted to deleting their accounts.”  To read more, go to the link below:

 

The Modern Way to Get Back at Your Cheating Spouse

So, many of you may have now heard about AshleyMadison.com whose tagline is “Life is Short, Have an Affair”(I would put a link, but, I’m pretty sure if you really want to go to that site, you don’t need my direction). It’s a website which explicitly exists as a match-making site for those interested in interactions in which at least one of the parties is already in a committed relationship with someone else. What you may not have heard of yet is Cheaterville.com (tagline: Don’t Be The Last to Know), in which wronged parties can post details about ex-paramours, for the purported purpose of “warning” others.

Would a suit for Libel stand against a poster on Cheaterville.com (Well, we know the answer if the allegation is true, but what if it’s not?) – Does it matter whether the individual who has been posted about is male or female (in terms of showing actual damage)? We’ve heard from social science and media over and over that while promiscuous behavior in men makes them “players” (at least a potentially positive attribute), women are more often dubbed “sluts.” Are women more hurt by such accusations online?

“Slut-shaming” is a whole different subject which I promise to post about some time soon – but in the meantime, I’ll be mulling over whether men or women are more hurt by sites like Cheaterville.com, and whether they might serve a legitimate purpose.

Doctors and Judges: Who Can They Friend On Facebook?

Some doctors use social media to discuss health topics, while other doctors use their Facebook or twitters as a tool to become more available to their patients.  Doctors who accept friend requests from patients may face concerns such as protecting patient privacy and maintaining appropriate boundaries between professional and social relationships.  At first glance, one may believe that there is no harm in doctors and patients being Facebook friends, however, as the article notes, this could violate HIPPA laws.

Judges face similar challenges when they choose to accept friend requests from prosecutors or defense lawyers who appear before them. In Florida, the court may soon clarify the parameters that judges and lawyers must abide by in regards to social media interaction. A Broward criminal case could set the stage for state law that will dictate who a judge can “friend” on Facebook.   This case arose after a defense attorney filed a motion to disqualify a judge because he was friends on Facebook with the assistant state attorney.

Would you feel comfortable friend requesting your doctor?

 

NY 2nd Dept. finds statute of limiations didn’t toll in suit against anonymous blogger

This case comes courtesy of some of the folks up in the Town of Wayawaynda in Upstate New York.   The controversy plays out like an oscar worthy movie.  Seems as if  someone beheaded a horse and then left the head in a Wayawanda Town Board member’s swimming pool.  The incident sparked accusatory anonymous blogs, posted in turn by  wayguy, johnny500 and wawayandafirst.  The posts occured on or about August 29, 2007 and  October 6, 2007 and accused plaintiff of pulling off the “Tom Hagan.” (although, like the plaintiff in this case, no one is sure that Don Corleone’s adopted son actually committed the heinous act).

Plaintiff filed suit on July 28, 2008 against Mike Hawkins, knowns as “wayguy” and two other bloggers, John Doe johnny500 (johnny500) and John Doe wawayandafirst (Wawayandafirst). Defendant Wayne Skinner was not identified by name in the original complaint, but on September 18, 2008, Plaintiff served Skinner  with copies of the original summons and complaint assuming Skinner was  John Doe johhny500 and wawayandafirst.   Three months later, on October 20, the complaint was amended, to include Wayne Skinner (and his wife.)

Skinner argued that the case should be dismissed since the statute of limitations ran prior to the October 20th filing. (the statute of limitations had not run out prior to July 28).   But, here is the twist, turns out that although skinner was not johnny500 he   was “wawayandfirst” and the court found that since  “the remaining John Doe named by the original complaint — “John Doe wawayandafirst’ (Wawayandafirst’)” — referred to Wayne Skinner, and since he was alleged in the complaint to be the individual responsible for issuing the Wawayandafirst blog posts. Under these circumstances, the original complaint was sufficient to have apprised Wayne Skinner that he was one of the intended defendants.”

I’m not sure whether the actual claim will stick, but I am certainly glad to see the court craft its opinion to hold an “originally anonymous” blogger responsible.

What does it take to make a blog review defamation?

Calling someone a “real tool” is not enough to defame a doctor’s reputation.  The Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled in the case, McKee v. Laurion, that a web review, written by Dennis Laurion the son of a one of Dr. David McKee’s patients, which stated, among other things, “Dr MCKee is a real tool,” was an opinion rather than fact, and therefore not actionable.

Ironically, Dr. McKee, like so many  doctors, presumably brought the action to defend his reputation, which was originally tarnished by those reading, and believing, the website on which the rating appeared.  Ironically, because of the McKee’s suit, Laurion’s words have gone viral.  What a bummer for Dr. McKee, not only did he lose his suit, but he potentially lost a wider patient base too!

Skip to toolbar