22/07/2024 10:52 AM

Fights Plog

Exceptional automotive

Be Careful When Using Social Media in Hiring Decisions

It’s no secret that auto dealerships have frequently been forced to defend themselves against discrimination claims by employees and agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As a result, many dealers have instituted comprehensive human resources programs to avoid potential problems. However, new technology brings new challenges.

As the use of social media grows, more and more dealerships are using the internet to screen potential employees. Many managers tasked with hiring find these sites to be particularly helpful because they perceive that this information reflects a more accurate representation of the applicant beyond the interview. This influx of information regarding applicants would seem to be a great way to vet their ability to “fit in” with a company.

While social media may allow employers to learn vast amounts of information about job applicants, hiring managers who even casually use these tools to gather information about a prospective employee could expose the dealership to legal risks. Given the real possibility for inappropriate and illegal uses in the hiring context, organizations need to carefully consider how, if at all, they utilize the sites when screening candidates.

Discrimination Claims – When a job candidate is the subject of a social media search there’s a possibility that the search will reveal information that would be off limits in an interview, such as age or marital status. Hiring managers should be very careful in using private information people are posting publicly to make hiring decisions. An employer’s availing themselves of such information could pave the way for allegations of discrimination if the employee or applicant believes that the employer used such information to make an adverse employment decision. A risk may be created that that this protected class information actually is being considered or, even if it is not, putting your organization in the position of having to defend a claim knowing that this information existed on the sites you visited. Risk factors include:

  • Information regarding age, race, religion, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics, such as pregnancy, illness or disability. For example, a person’s Facebook page may disclose their religion. Once an employer knows that information, the fact that the employer knew the potential employee’s religion can be used in an employment discrimination suit.
  • Checking social media or the Internet only on applicants of a certain race or gender.
  • Searching on all applicants, but using the same information differently against one particular type of applicants. For example, if all of your applicants had pictures of themselves of drinking alcohol in public, but you viewed that fact more negatively against females, that could be considered discrimination.
  • Rejecting an applicant based on conduct protected by lawful off-duty conduct laws.
  • Rejecting an applicant because of his or her political activities may violate state constitutional law.

To avoid these legal obstacles, you may decide that it’s better to not even collect that information, so you can say that you didn’t have access to it. Another procedure would be to have someone other than a hiring manager or decision maker in human resources conduct an online background check of job applicants. The individual who does the online check should avoid sharing with decision makers any personal information about a job candidate that’s not relevant to the hiring decision. This individual should be properly trained to avoid improper access and to screen out information that can’t be lawfully considered in the decision-making process. Having a firewall between the hiring manager and social media information about job applicants makes it difficult for a plaintiff subsequently to contend that the hiring manager discriminated against him or her based on a legally protected characteristic.

Invasion of privacy claims by potential employees – Generally, a potential employee will have a tough time asserting this claim because you need a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and a lot of people keep their social media profiles open to the public. However, it’s clear that if the applicant is using the highest privacy settings and the employer somehow gets past all these barriers, the claim is stronger.

A point to consider is how the hiring manager will obtain access to the candidate’s page. Many social media users have some degree of privacy established in their settings. As a result, access to the candidate’s page may require “friending” the applicant and the applicant accepting the request. Not a good idea.

Using an outside agency to screen applicants – If an employer uses a third party to conduct searches on job candidates the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and applicable state law on background checks likely will apply. The Fair Credit Reporting Act governs “employment background checks for the purposes of hiring” and applies if “an employer uses a third-party screening company to prepare the check.” Thus, if an employer is using an outside resource to view social networking sites and provide information, the applicant must be informed of the investigation, given an opportunity to consent, and notified if the report is used to make an adverse decision. It’s important to ensure that any company you use to perform background checks follows the correct procedures, and that your employment applications contain the proper notifications.

Best practices for the use of social media in hiring decisions:

  1. Develop a policy on whether or not the hiring manager will search the internet or social media sites in hiring.
  2. If you decide to use social media in hiring, do the searches on applicants consistently and in a uniform manner.
  3. Make sure candidates are notified, in writing, about the companies use of social media to gather information, e.g., on job applications.
  4. Ensure that employment decisions are made based on lawful, verified information. Don’t allow factors to be considered that have no relevancy to job performance, such as race, age, or sexual orientation. They’re all protected statuses by law and using them as criteria for hiring is discriminatory.
  5. Follow best practices in identifying a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the hiring decision with the documentation supporting the decision.
  6. Prohibit “friending” a potential employee to learn things about them that the general public doesn’t have access to.
  7. Discourage supervisors from being social media friends with their direct reports.