The City of Bozeman, Montana will no longer require Facebook passwords as part of its application process, as reported in Delaware Employment Law blog.  That was a risky decision.  How many applicants would pass up this relatively large employer (in that neck of the woods) if they have to reveal too much.  Too, the city is a government entity.  Requiring a Facebook password would present privacy issues the city need not face.  

But, take this as a warning – there may be more employers out there considering such a measure.  The best protection for any employee is to simply be careful about what you put on Facebook, Myspace, etc.  

 They are perhaps our most vulnerable citizens.  We refer to them as developmentally disabled, today.  We used to refer to them as mentally retarded.  Whatever the name, they deserve better.  Trial over the so-called fight club at Corpus Christi State School has started.   Developmentally disabled function at many different levels.  Some can live quite independently.   Others, must rely on places like our state school system.   But, all deserve better than what they got at Corpus Christi State School.  

My previous employer, Advocacy, Inc. is charged with overseeing state schools and other mental institutions.  As Beth Mitchell mentions in this story, the larger concern is that administrators had to have had some idea of what was going on.  What, if anything, did they do about the fight club?  Why did it take news reports for them to finally take some action?  For more information regarding the state wide problem, see Advocacy’s report.  

I visited San Antonio State School many times.  SASS residents are developmentally disabled.  I found many of the administrators to be concerned, dedicated professionals.  But, we do pay the first line aids bottom dollar.  State schools suffer from a high turnover.  We can do better.  Will we?  

 I’ll be gone this week and next.  No. 1 son, No. 2 son and I will travel to Yellowstone National Park.  We have been to a couple of national parks and they have all been just excellent places to visit.  If you don’t vacation sometime, I recommend that you do so.  Even the smallest budget can manage something.  if you do take vacations, I very much recommend our wonderful, amazing national parks.  

A couple of weeks ago, No. 1 son and I went to Northern Tier canoe base.  After that "high adventure" trip, a much less strenuous trip to Yellowstone is very appealing…..

 You love your job.  You love your job so much that you like to blog about it when you get home.  But, what if your employer does not like your comments?  A recent federal appeals court decision applies some limits to what you can say in your post.  See Richerson v. Beckon. 

The only reason you have some rights is if you are a government employee.  As a public employee, you are entitled to some 1st Amendment rights when discussing issues that affect the public.  

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals drew the line at several vituperative and highly person comments. That makes some sense, since 1st Amendment speech must be concerned with public, not very personal views.  But, remember, you only get to make such comments in the first place if you are a public employee commenting on matters of public concern.  Private sector employees have no comparable free speech rights. 

 In a recent decision, a federal court in California found it unlawful for an employer to monitor an employee’s key strokes in order to obtain his password to a personal email account.  The U.S. district court found this action violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed in 1986.  The decision, Brahmana v. Lembo,  is important.   While the email account may be personal, the equipment used to access the account belongs to the employer.  The courts have wrestled with this issue for some time and will, no doubt, continue to struggle with he boundaries between employee property and employer property. 

 Well, as often happens, the new decision is out but it will take months or longer to understand what it means.  The US Supreme Court issued its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven, Connecticut firefighters case.  Workplace profs have observed:

"To say that concern over the possibility of a discriminatory effect is itself a discriminatory motive seems to create a terrible theory of discrimination, a moral equivalence, that automatically pits groups against one another in competition for jobs. It’s also an implicit rejection of the basis for the Court’s early decisions on Title VII, that discrimination in employment was common,. . . "

That causes me concern.  The entire premise of Title VII, as passed in 1964, was that discrimination was a real part of the workplace.  If we have to start re-evaluating basic premises like that, then employment law will essentially start all over.  

 The better clients come to see me with documents in hand, sometimes boxes and boxes of documents.  This is the client who wants to be prepared, who seeks to have some control over the outcome of a potential lawsuit.  Some, some very few, will come see me with documents they obtained from their employer.  Is it "legal" to have those documents?  It depends.  See one case where the court found the employee unlawfully took documents home.  But, the court indicated a different set of circumstances in which the employee would have been protected for having taken those documents.  

But, see Michael Maslanka’s eventual reaction to a situation in which an employee takes documents home and keeps them: better to simply sue and get them the traditional way.  That is, Mr. Maslanka would say it is better to file suit and then seek the documents in discovery.  He generally represents employers.  The safest course is to always do what your employer tells you to do.  if the employer says do not take documents home, then do not.  But, yes, if the employer has a policy of letting employees take documents home, then it is probably safe to do so.  But, you better be double-darn sure.  Nothing can ruin a good case than to violate some law or employer policy.  If you take something that does not belong to you, then the lawsuit becomes about you, not about the employer.  

 Hard to believe, but a judge ‘"friended" a lawyer on Facebook.  The lawyer was appearing before the judge in a case.  The judge in North Carolina would respond to comments from the lawyer about the case.   See story as reported by Delaware Employment Law Blog.   Yea, I would call that "ex parte" communication with a party to a lawsuit.  Which, BTW, is pretty much unethical…..

At some point, the lawyer even responded to one of the judge’s responses as "wise judge."  Sheesh…..