# Fired over facebook message. Illegal? Maybe.



## bstone (Nov 9, 2010)

> The labor relations board announced last week that it had filed a complaint against an ambulance service, American Medical Response of Connecticut, that fired an emergency medical technician, accusing her, among other things, of violating a policy that bars employees from depicting the company “in any way” on Facebook or other social media sites in which they post pictures of themselves.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=1


----------



## Shishkabob (Nov 9, 2010)

Meh, company policy is you can have a blog / facebook / etc etc, and post what you will, but it shall not put the company or it's contracts in a negative light.


Don't necessarily agree with it, and I've been known to do it too, but there's a reason why my blog is anonymous and I add no one that I work with  ^_^


Texas is an at will state, so not much recourse here for me if something were to happen.


----------



## Emtpbill (Nov 9, 2010)

Just because a state is an at will employment state, that doesn't mean employees don't have any rights.
   AMR over stepped it's bounds on this. If they wanted to get rid of the employee they should have gotten their ducks in order and found some other bogus reason for firing her ( 2 min. Late, bad paperwork, etc.)

     They will end up having to offer her her job back and pay her back pay for all the missed shifts.


----------



## bstone (Nov 9, 2010)

Emtpbill said:


> Just because a state is an at will employment state, that doesn't mean employees don't have any rights.
> AMR over stepped it's bounds on this. If they wanted to get rid of the employee they should have gotten their ducks in order and found some other bogus reason for firing her ( 2 min. Late, bad paperwork, etc.)
> 
> They will end up having to offer her her job back and pay her back pay for all the missed shifts.



True. A state's law of being at-will is nice and all, but this is a federal issue.


----------



## EMSLaw (Nov 9, 2010)

At-will employment means that the employer can terminate your employment for any legal reason, or no reason at all.  At-will employment does not permit your employer to terminate you for an illegal reason.  

It's a bit funny actually... They can fire you because they just don't like you, but they can't fire you (or say they fired you) because of your race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  

In this case, the argument seems to be that the termination was for an illegal reason - protected speech in violation of Federal law.  So, it being an at-will state will make no difference.  

Also, an employer's right to terminate could be limited by their contract with the Union, which would likely include some form of progressive discipline.


----------



## alphatrauma (Nov 9, 2010)

> ... she had written, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” — 17 is the company’s lingo for a psychiatric patient.



Nice!


----------



## Harvey (Nov 9, 2010)

Gotta take care to watch what you post and where you post it these days. I dont like the facebook location update. just seems like so many problems are coming from the site. I am thinking of deleting my profile on it.


----------



## bstone (Nov 9, 2010)

Harvey said:


> Gotta take care to watch what you post and where you post it these days. I dont like the facebook location update. just seems like so many problems are coming from the site. I am thinking of deleting my profile on it.



I dont have a phone with internet. I have a regular cell phone that makes and receives calls. That's all. Because I am not tied into anything I don't have to worry about location update.

Anyhow, she is allowed to say to her friends whatever she wants to say. Right?


----------



## reaper (Nov 9, 2010)

This was debated with experts of the 1st amend. 

You have no protection of free speech from a private employer. The 1st amendment protects you from the government. So her only case is union laws.


----------



## CAO (Nov 9, 2010)

Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?


----------



## bstone (Nov 9, 2010)

CAO said:


> Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?



Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.


----------



## FrostbiteMedic (Nov 9, 2010)

Two things to consider here:
1. If she was required to prepare a response to any allegation and she was a member of a union, then she has the _right_ to have a union rep there. It's kinda like having a lawyer with you when you are getting questioned at the police station.  AMR screwed the pooch big time if they truly would not let her have her rep assist her with the response.
2.In at will states (my wonderful Rocky Top being one of them), you can be fired for any reason by an employer, _however_, if they give you a reason it must be able to be substansiated and against a written policy, otherwise you can file a complaint with that state's labor board. For example: I come into work one day and my boss decides that he doesn't like my socks. He calls me into his office and says "You're fired." Well, at this point I am on my way to draw unemployment, but the firing was legal. 
Same scenario again, except that the boss says "You have missed 3 days of work in the past year. You're fired!" I go out to my truck and pull out my company handbook and the attendance policy states that it takes 5 absences within a six month period to get terminated. At this point, I can go to the local labor board and file a complaint, because the reason that I was fired was not legal. 

It was said earlier that they would have to give her her job back. Truth be told, if I were her, I would take a cash settlement and look for other employment because the people who fired her will just find another way to fire her later on down the road, and when that happens, they will make sure that it sticks. For example (and I do know of an employer that did this to get rid of a "problem" employee) what if they were to wait until they knew she went out of town for a couple days (say she had a couple days off and went to visit family a couple states over) and then call a mandatory meeting for all employees? If she did not request it off (and get it approved), and depending on the way her terms of employment are worded, she could be fired for missing it. In other words, if she is lucky to get money out of this, then she needs to take it and run.


----------



## EMSLaw (Nov 9, 2010)

reaper said:


> You have no protection of free speech from a private employer. The 1st amendment protects you from the government. So her only case is union laws.



Did I ever say that, or is this not directed at me?  Federal law gives you the certain rights, and your employer is bound by that law.  So, you have certain protected speech, even in connection with your private employer.  Whether the comments in this case are protected, I don't care to speculate.  



bstone said:


> Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.



Sure it's public, but it doesn't matter.  It doesn't need to be "public" like "shouted on the street corner".  You just need to "publish" the defamation to any one person other than yourself.  

On the other hand, defamation (libel and slander) covers only statements of fact that are known to be false.  A statement of opinion is protected.


----------



## CAO (Nov 9, 2010)

bstone said:


> Libel only if it's a public forum. Facebook is not public.



True, but I can see it being argued if she doesn't have her information private.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 10, 2010)

CAO said:


> Potential accuracy aside, is it not libel?


 
*Gets on soapbox*

That is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I really hope you don't know how offensive you sound. Claiming libel or slander when someone implies another person has a psychiatric problem is insulting to every person out there with a mental illness. It is like saying that calling someone gay or black is libel/slander. It implies that being those things is somehow bad, and it hurts a "normal" person to be called those things. If they want to go after her becuase it was inaccurate, fine. But to go after her for libel is deplorable and beyond insulting. 

/soapbox

A little more info on the case: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097443/ns/business-personal_finance/


----------



## FrostbiteMedic (Nov 10, 2010)

Aidey said:


> *Gets on soapbox*
> That is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I really hope you don't know how offensive you sound. Claiming libel or slander when someone implies another person has a psychiatric problem is insulting to every person out there with a mental illness. It is like saying that calling someone gay or black is libel/slander. It implies that being those things is somehow bad, and it hurts a "normal" person to be called those things. If they want to go after her becuase it was inaccurate, fine. But to go after her for libel is deplorable and beyond insulting.



Well said Aidey...my wife has some issues with "normality" (and is being treated for said issues) and we both happen to agree with your post. Well said sir.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 10, 2010)

Thank you. 

On a side note, why does everyone think I'm a guy? lol


----------



## EMSLaw (Nov 10, 2010)

Aidey, while I personally agree with your position, I'm afraid that the law is not yet so forward thinking.  Indeed, accusing someone who doesn't have a mental illness of having one is considered to be so obviously harmful that in some states it falls into the category of defamation _per se_, which means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove specific damage to his reputation.  It's the same as if I said someone had an STD (a category that we loved in law school, because the case law discusses "imputing a loathesome disease") when they didn't.

Incidentally, falsely saying that someone is homosexual is also, at least in some states, considered to be defamatory per se, though that's being questioned now in some places.  In some states, it is still defamatory per se to "impute unchastity to a woman."  Until public norms change so that these things are not considered harmful to the reputation of someone who is not mentally ill, homosexual, or unchaste, the law will likely continue to recompense harm for false or reckless statements.


----------



## FrostbiteMedic (Nov 10, 2010)

Aidey said:


> Thank you.
> 
> On a side note, why does everyone think I'm a guy? lol


I assumed because of the name, and my apologies to you m'lady.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 10, 2010)

EMSLaw said:


> Aidey, while I personally agree with your position, I'm afraid that the law is not yet so forward thinking.  Indeed, accusing someone who doesn't have a mental illness of having one is considered to be so obviously harmful that in some states it falls into the category of defamation _per se_, which means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove specific damage to his reputation.  It's the same as if I said someone had an STD (a category that we loved in law school, because the case law discusses "imputing a loathesome disease") when they didn't.
> 
> Incidentally, falsely saying that someone is homosexual is also, at least in some states, considered to be defamatory per se, though that's being questioned now in some places.  In some states, it is still defamatory per se to "impute unchastity to a woman."  Until public norms change so that these things are not considered harmful to the reputation of someone who is not mentally ill, homosexual, or unchaste, the law will likely continue to recompense harm for false or reckless statements.



It is still disgusting. Like I said, some sort of consequence for saying something that is false is one thing. But by categorizing those things as "bad" it is insulting and dehumanizing to the people who are those things. 




frostbiteEMT said:


> I assumed because of the name, and my apologies to you m'lady.



How is my name masculine? I'm curious because everyone seems to think I'm a guy. 

Medic school, drunk guy decided to call me "the first aidey lady".


----------



## FrostbiteMedic (Nov 10, 2010)

Aidey said:


> How is my name masculine? I'm curious because everyone seems to think I'm a guy.
> Medic school, drunk guy decided to call me "the first aidey lady".



Put in that light your name makes sense, however, taken just as it is without any explanation behind it it seems to be a masculine first name, or at least that is how I interpreted it. Again, my apologies if I have slighted you, it was not my intention to do so.


----------



## Aidey (Nov 10, 2010)

Don't worry, you didn't. I'm just amused becuase you are like the 10th person to call me a guy.


----------



## CAO (Nov 10, 2010)

Aidey said:


> *Gets on soapbox*
> 
> That is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I really hope you don't know how offensive you sound. Claiming libel or slander when someone implies another person has a psychiatric problem is insulting to every person out there with a mental illness. It is like saying that calling someone gay or black is libel/slander. It implies that being those things is somehow bad, and it hurts a "normal" person to be called those things. If they want to go after her becuase it was inaccurate, fine. But to go after her for libel is deplorable and beyond insulting.
> 
> ...



No offense meant at all.  I was just trying to point out that somebody was going to throw the term into some legal papers somewhere in this case.  I never said I was agreeing with it one way or the other.

I had too many classes during my stint in another career path that threw the term out in nearly everything.  Not saying it's right, but it's hard to find a case like this where slander or libel isn't thrown in at one point or another.  It doesn't matter what they're referring to.  Even the second article throws out slander.


----------



## adamjh3 (Nov 10, 2010)

Last time I posted in a thread about facebook and work I got an infraction. (Not compaining, I overstepped the bounds and was warned accordingly).

So I'll say "the internet isn't as anonymous as everyone thinks it is, especially if you're not careful. Yeah she may or may not win her suit, I don't know enough about the laws to say either way, however, wouldn't it be a lot easier to just keep your trap shut?" And leave it at that. 



> Don't worry, you didn't. I'm just amused becuase you are like the 10th person to call me a guy.



I only figured out that you're a female about a week ago h34r:


----------



## firetender (Nov 11, 2010)

*Related Info*

This is from the EMSblogs.com website, discussing the Social Media thang: http://thesocialmedic.net/2010/11/social-media-policies-for-ems-agencies-redux/


----------



## goodgrief (Nov 11, 2010)

AMR is pretty adament that she was fired because she had an additude problem and they had recieved complaints about how rude she was to patients. 

And according to cnn.com she spoke to her union rep before signing off on anything. 

I dont think CT is an at will state, I know they (illegally I think) force you to join an union if your company has one.

either way I feel that this girl isnt using the brains cells she has, She is young enough to understand what privacy settings are on FB and didnt use them. 

I run my mouth on FB all day, but i put my brain cells to go work and 1. Im not friends who co workers, 2. my page is private 

Im not seeing the proof where AMR fired her because of what was said on FB or how they even knew she was stupid enough to be writing things on there.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 11, 2010)

adamjh3 said:


> So I'll say "the internet isn't as anonymous as everyone thinks it is, especially if you're not careful.



I work for an ISP, and let me say this to everyone...

*EVERYTHING*, and I mean *EVERYTHING* you do on the Internet can be found out by somebody.  It's just a matter of how much time and effort they want to put into it.

Like Chimpie says in his signature 





> "Think before you post."


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Nov 11, 2010)

ffemt8978 said:


> Like Chimpie says in his signature



Also translated as: 

LISTEN TO THE MONKEY!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do any of you have agency policies about what should and should not be posted on sites like facebook and mypage or whatever? We are looking to implement a social media policy at our service. Any advice? Not to hijack this thread of course. So please don't reply in this thread. PM me.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Nov 11, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Do any of you have agency policies about what should and should not be posted on sites like facebook and mypage or whatever? We are looking to implement a social media policy at our service. Any advice? Not to hijack this thread of course. So please don't reply in this thread. PM me.



Better yet, why don't you start a new thread about it so others may learn.


----------



## JJR512 (Nov 15, 2010)

Harvey said:


> Gotta take care to watch what you post and where you post it these days. I dont like the facebook location update. just seems like so many problems are coming from the site. I am thinking of deleting my profile on it.



Or you could, you know, just turn off the location feature...


----------



## MrBrown (Nov 15, 2010)

Brown says bad things about work on Facebook, but, never by name only in generic terms and it is not listed on Facebook where Brown works.

Brown agrees that any orginisation must take practicable steps to protect its reputation and image however that does not stop people having thier own point of view and expressing it as such.

Be careful where thy treads.


----------



## rbromme (Nov 16, 2010)

goodgrief said:


> I dont think CT is an at will state, I know they (illegally I think) force you to join an union if your company has one.



CT is an at will state and you are not forced to join the union at AMR, your are forced to pay union dues because everyone is hired under the union contract.  You have to pay an extra $1 a week to the strike fund to join the union and have a union vote.


----------



## goodgrief (Nov 16, 2010)

so im confused, I thought at will meant that you could fire for any reason?

Thanks for the union clarification. I was looking to move to CT last summer, but my misunderstanding of the union rules there was a reason I didnt go. 

AMR is standing by that she was just a witch to patients


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 16, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Or you could, you know, just turn off the location feature...



...or just not use something that checks you in.


----------



## JJR512 (Nov 17, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...or just not use something that checks you in.



This seems like kind of a redundant suggestion. What you quoted from me was an alternative to an action (deleting a Facebook profile) that would have had the same net effect as what you're suggesting (ceasing use of Facebook, which is what checks you in). I'm just saying that when an alternative is proposed to something, it's understood that both things are alternatives to each other, so it seems kind of redundant to propose the original as an alternative to the alternative.


----------



## JPINFV (Nov 17, 2010)

Deleting Facebook and not using something that checks you in are two different things. I use Facebook, but my phone doesn't access it. Therefore I am never checked into any location regardless of my Facebook settings.


----------



## JJR512 (Nov 17, 2010)

Whether one deletes one's Facebook profile or just doesn't use it, the net end result is the same: one isn't using Facebook. It's Facebook that checks one in, not the phone.

My point was to inform Harvey that if he'd like to continue using Facebook, but doesn't think he can due to the check-in feature, that turning that feature off is a better solution than ceasing to use Facebook entirely. Not everyone realizes that "features" like this are _optional_ and can be turned off, disabled, or opted out of. If Harvey would like to continue to use Facebook and would like to continue to be able to access it from his phone, then turning this particular feature off is the _best_ solution.

Of course, if he no longer cares about using Facebook, then it doesn't really matter; may as well go ahead and delete it.


----------

