Government Employers Can (and Should) Have a Social-Media Policy: Part 3

http://ow.ly/6CLOL

An article by Molly DiBianca posted on the Delaware Employment Law Blog.  Also earlier posts in the series include, Government Employers Can (and Should) Have a Social-Media Policy, Part 1 and Part 2.

This article discusses the importance of a policy to regulate social media network use by employees, and specifically discusses government agencies use of such social media sites.

The article touches on the implications of free speech rights, and whether they are more limited in the workplace, and perhaps even more limited if you are employed by a public entity.

The article discusses the few cases that pertain to this issue, and shows that there are some conflicts in the recent precedent about social media use.  The article specifically mentions the following cases (among others):

"Melzer v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 336 F.3d 185, 192 (2d Cir. 2003).

Because social media is a "new" technology, there are only a few cases that address whether a public employee may be disciplined or terminated as a result of online conduct that occurs while the employee is off duty. But those cases "clearly" provide legal support for the adoption of Dover's proposed policy.

In Stengle v. Office of Dispute Resolution, 631 F. Supp. 2d 564 (M.D. Pa. 2009), a hearing officer employed by the State of Pennsylvania maintained a blog, the description of which stated that its intended purpose was to

share information about inclusion and the implementation of the Gaskin Settlement agreement from the perspective of a parent of a class member and to provide a means to share information with other class members."

The "Gaskin Settlement Agreement" was a very hot topic in Stengle's local community. It was also the settlement of a matter over which she was presiding in her capacity as a hearing officer. When her contract was not renewed after she declined to recuse herself from the matter. Stengle sued, alleging that the non-renewal of her contract constituted an unlawful violation of her First Amendment rights."

This will be an area of law that will require further clarification.