Skip to main content

Beware What You Post on Facebook - Even Just "Venting" Can Be Grounds for Termination & Denial of Unemployment Benefits


Talbot v. Desert View Care Center - Supreme Court of Idaho


Facts:  Talbot worked as a nurse at Desert View Care Center.  However, a Facebook post triggered his termination for violating the employer's social media policy.  In the post, Talbot stated that he didn't like some patients who made his work difficult and stated that these patients made him less motivated to answer their call light whenever they needed something.  After one of Talbot's Facebook friends, a nursing professor, reported the post to the employer and expressed concerns about resident safety, the employer fired Talbot and cited its social media policy. 

Talbot sought unemployment benefits but his claim was denied because he was discharged for violating the company's policy.  Talbot appealed and the Appeals Examiner reversed the initial denial and found that Talbot had not been terminated for employment related misconduct.  The employer appealed and the decision was reversed and Talbot was denied unemployment benefits.  Talbot subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

Holding:  The Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the denial of Talbot's unemployment benefits.  When the Court examined the facts of the case, it honed in on the fact that the employer had an expectation that its nurses would not make threatening statements about a patient on Facebook and that Talbot failed to meet the employer's expectations.  Talbot's argument that his post was not a threat and only his way of "venting steam" did not fly with the Court.

Judgment:  The Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the decision to deny Talbot unemployment benefits as a result of threatening post on Facebook in violation of the employer's social media policy.

The Takeaway:  This decision makes sense, given the liability the employer could have faced if a patient had suffered harm as a result of Talbot's admitted unwilling desire to offer the best care to all patients.  In a case like this, especially with an employer in the health care industry, it is important to remain vigilant and insure that when a social media policy is in place, that employees respect it and not post comments that are deemed threatening.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Chief Judge Burdick

Date:  June 20, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/41208.pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more