Category: Hiring

Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring Webinar Cover

Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring (Webinar)

On February 15, 2018, I presented a complimentary webinar on Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring. For those who couldn’t attend the live webinar, I’m happy to make it available for you to watch at your convenience.

In the webinar, I discuss the recent legal challenges to using social media in hiring, such as:

  • Facebook Ad Discrimination
  • Background Check Requirements
  • Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Programs

I also describe employer obligations and best practices related to:

  • How Laws About Genetic Information Apply to Online Research of Job Candidates
  • Recordkeeping Requirements
  • Screening Applicants Through Social Media

Don’t have time to watch the whole webinar right now? Click here to download the slides from the webinar.

Why You Should Watch This Webinar

Social media has become ubiquitous. Just about every organization uses social media in some way in connection with hiring new employees. Either in recruiting candidates in the first place or reviewing applicants under consideration for hire.  However, there is a surprising amount of legal regulations that may affect these practices. Recent lawsuits and compliance efforts by regulatory authorities demonstrate that employers should take appropriate precautions to avoid and be positioned to defend claims by unsuccessful applicants.

Don’t Miss My Future Webinars!

Click here to sign up for my email newsletter to be among the first to know when registration is open for upcoming programs!

Applicant Recordkeeping Requirements

Applicant Recordkeeping for Employers

Various laws either expressly require or essentially necessitate that employers retain information about job applicants for some period of time. These applicant recordkeeping requirements arise primarily from employment discrimination statues and obligations imposed on government contractors. But good business records are vital in defense of virtually any potential legal claim.

If you’re interested in other hiring issues, watch my webinar on the Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

EEOC Recordkeeping Rules

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has promulgated recordkeeping rules related to the laws it enforces. These include applicant recordkeeping.

Under the rules:

All Personnel and Employment Records made or used (including, but not limited to, requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants, and records dealing with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay, compensation, tenure, selection for training or apprenticeship, or other terms of employment) must be preserved for these periods:

  1. Private employers must retain such records for one year from the date of making the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, but in the case of involuntary termination of an employee, they must retain the terminated employee’s personnel or employment records for one year from the date of termination.
  2. Educational Institutions and State and Local Governments must retain such records for two years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, but in the case of involuntary termination of an employee, they must retain the terminated employee’s personnel or employment records for two years from the date of termination.

Uniform Selection Guidelines

Various federal agencies, including the EEOC, worked together to issue “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” in 1978. These guidelines apply generally to employers subject to Title VII (15+ employees) and federal contractors subject to Executive Order 11246’s affirmative action requirements. They cover an array of topics related to selection procedures used as the basis for any employment decision. This includes validation of employee testing procedures, for example. But also routine hiring interviews, and most everything in between.

The Uniform Selection Guidelines provide that:

“Each [employer] should maintain and have available for inspection records or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests and other selection procedures have upon employment opportunities of persons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic group . . . in order to determine compliance with these guidelines.”

The Guidelines state that employers with 100+ employees “should maintain and have available for each job information on adverse impact of the selection process for that job and, where it is determined a selection process has an adverse impact, evidence of validity . . . .”

The Guidelines afford “Simplified record keeping for users with less than 100 employees”. These small employers need only retain records showing the:

  • number of persons hired, promoted, and terminated for each job, by sex, and where appropriate by race and national origin;
  • number of applicants for hire and promotion by sex and where appropriate by race and national origin; and
  • selection procedures utilized (either standardized or not standardized).

Obtaining the Data

The Guidelines themselves specify no particular procedure for obtaining data on applicants’ race, sex, or ethnic classifications. Other EEOC guidance allows that:

  • “Where applications are made in person, a user may maintain a log or applicant flow chart based upon visual observation, identifying the number of persons expressing an interest, by sex and by race or national origin; may in some circumstances rely upon personal knowledge of the user; or may rely upon self-identification.”
  • “Where applications are not made in person and the applicants are not personally known to the employer, self-identification may be appropriate. Wherever a self-identification form is used, the employer should advise the applicant that identification by race, sex and national origin is sought, not for employment decisions, but for record-keeping in compliance with Federal law.”

Federal Contractors

As part of their affirmative action programs, federal contractors must analyze personnel activity data. They must determine whether there are selection disparities. In connection with those requirements, regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFFCP) provide that covered contractors must preserve all personnel records for at least one or two years: One year for contractors with fewer than 150 employees or maximum contract size under $150,000. Two years for contractors with 150+ employees or a contract of at least $150,000.

Federal contractors with a contract of $100,000+ and 50+ employees must also create and retain evaluations of outreach and recruitment efforts, certain comparisons regarding applicants and employees, and records related to hiring benchmarks for at least three years.

Collectively, these requirements compel covered federal contractors to identify “applicants” and preserve records and data about them. This may include data about each applicant’s race, ethnicity, sex, veteran, and disability status.

Internet Applicants

Because the Internet created new hiring processes, the OFFCP issued guidelines to define who qualifies as an “Internet Applicant.”

An “Internet Applicant” is an individual who satisfies all four of these criteria:

  • The individual submitted an expression of interest in employment through the Internet or related electronic data technologies;
  • The contractor considered the individual for employment in a particular position;
  • The individual’s expression of interest indicated that the individual possesses the basic qualifications for the position; and
  • The individual, at no point in the contractor’s selection process prior to receiving an offer of employment from the contractor, removed himself or herself from further consideration or otherwise indicated that he/she was no longer interested in the position.

Related Internet Applicant rules apply to federal contractors who accept electronic submissions for a position. If you may be subject to these applicant recordkeeping requirements, check with your legal counsel and/or affirmative action administrators to make sure you are retaining the appropriate information regarding applicants, including those who apply online.

Click here for more on legal issues related hiring through the Internet.

Statutes of Limitations

Beyond satisfying express applicant recordkeeping requirements, employers must be mindful of defending against claims by employees or unsuccessful job candidates. If the employer has not retained all records related to the hiring process, it may face obstacles in providing the validity of its process and decisions. Thus, the statutes of limitations for legal claims are a consideration in determining how long to keep these records.

The federal discrimination laws generally require an applicant or employee to file a claim within 300 days (sometimes less). However, claims of patterns or practice or continuing violation may allow a longer look back period.

State discrimination laws may have even longer statutes of limitations. For example, individuals have up to three years to bring claims under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Overall Suggestions on Applicant Recordkeeping

All employers should create and retain sufficient documentation to support their hiring decisions. Some employers will have specific minimum obligations, especially including federal contractors with affirmative action requirements.

It’s possible that employees or applicants will attempt to litigate years after the underlying decisions. Therefore, it is often prudent to retain all personnel records indefinitely. Fortunately, modern technology permits employers to keep these records at relatively low cost. Scanning and electronic storage can also enable efficient searching and recall of documents when needed.

Again, this is only a general overview of some recordkeeping requirements. An employer’s specific circumstances may warrant additional or different considerations.

For more information about legal issues related to modern hiring practices, check out this webinar on the Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

 

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

On December 20, 2017, the Communications Workers of America filed a federal lawsuit in California claiming that various employers had discriminated against job applicants based on age. The named defendant employers are T-Mobile, Amazon, Cox Communications, and Cox Media Group. CWA contends these companies (among others) unlawfully targeted candidates through Facebook ads. Several individuals joined CWA as plaintiffs in this proposed class action.

In addition to the four named defendants, the lawsuit purports to also “bring this action . . . against a Defendant Class of hundreds of major American employers and employment agencies that, upon information and belief, routinely exclude older workers from receiving their employment and recruiting ads on Facebook, and thus deny older workers job opportunities.” The lawsuit indicates that the plaintiffs intend to identify additional defendants “through early discovery in this action or a pre-discovery exchange of information with Facebook.”

Prefer a free webinar? Try Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

These statements from the lawsuit reflect the theory behind the plaintiffs’ claims:

  • “These companies eliminate older workers from receiving job ads by specifically targeting their employment ads to younger workers via Facebook’s ad platform.”
  • “Upon information and belief, nationwide, large and small employers alike apparently believe that it is appropriate and desirable to exclude American workers from job opportunities solely based on their age.”
  • “When selecting the population of Facebook users who will receive employment ads, employers and employment agencies routinely focus their ads on prospective applicants who are in age bands that exclude many workers who are 40-years-old or greater, e.g., workers who are ‘ages 18 to 38,’ ‘ages 22 to 45,’ or ‘ages 21 to 55,’ thereby preventing older workers from receiving advertising and recruitment for job opportunities, upon information and belief.”
  • “Upon information and belief, Facebook does not stop an employer or employment agency from selecting a younger age range (such as ages 18 to 40) that discriminates against older workers in setting the population that will receive an employment ad via Facebook.”
  • “Facebook provides advertisers the ability to send employment ads to individuals who fall into the following categories related to a younger age group or categories that ordinarily would be a proxy for younger workers: Young & hip – a group of millions of people “whose activities strongly suggest they are young and hip” (according to Facebook); and Millennials – a group of millions of people “who have expressed an interest in or like pages related to Millennials” (according to Facebook).”

Potential Defendants

The lawsuit describes as defendants:

All employers or employment agencies who annually employ at least 2,500 employees or annually refer for employment at least 2,500 employees, and have purchased or sent employment-related Facebook advertisements that placed an upper age limit on the population of Facebook users that was eligible to receive an advertisement, at any time from the earliest date actionable under the limitations period applicable to the given claim, until the date of judgment in this action.

A Federal Complaint for the Facebook Age

The complaint document itself demonstrates a modern approach to federal court litigation. It includes screenshots of some of the contested Facebook ads pasted right into the standard pleading paragraphs.

One such screenshot is a “Why am I seeing this ad?” window. It indicates, “There may be other reasons you’re seeing this ad, including that T-Mobile Careers wants to reach people ages 18 to 38 who live or were recently in the United States.

The lawsuit does not specifically name Facebook as a defendant. However, it uses Facebook’s own job posting as evidence of the capability to target job candidates by age. (At least the Facebook example shown suggests a larger age range, from 21 to 55!)

Age Discrimination

For procedural reasons, the CWA lawsuit only asserts claims under various state laws that prohibit age discrimination. But the plaintiffs reference the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act in summarizing the legal/policy basis for their claims.

The ADEA prohibits employers with 20+ employees from discriminating based on age among employees 40 years old or older. It includes this provision specific to job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notice or advertisement indicating preference, limitation, etc.

It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age.

Not Just Age Discrimination

Age isn’t the only characteristic upon which applicants have alleged employment discrimination through Facebook ads. On November 3, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the same California federal court. Facebook is the only named defendant in that case, which alleged both employment- and housing-related discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin.

The employment discrimination claims allege violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Besides Facebook, this lawsuit uses “Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999” to refer to purported “entities that have used Facebook’s Ad Platform to illegally discriminate . . . with advertisements for employment or housing.”

Like the ADEA, Title VII has a specific provision regarding job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination; occupational qualification exception

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer . . .  indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.

Facebook and the plaintiffs are currently mediating this lawsuit.

Avoiding Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

We don’t have court decisions on these claims yet. Nonetheless, most employers should probably avoid limiting publication of their online job postings to certain age groups. Targeting individuals 18+ may be acceptable for many jobs. But there would be few situations where an upper age limit would be a risk-free approach.

Likewise, limiting ads based on gender, race, religion, etc., is also a risky strategy. Perhaps a compelling (and potentially non-discriminatory) business case can be made. But applicants may still follow the lead of these cases and challenge online recruiting practices that appear to exclude them.

As the litigation develops in these and other cases, perhaps some additional leeway may emerge as reasonable. For example, is it okay to run separate ads for different age groups, as long as no-one is excluded? Would the employer need to spend an equal amount on all age groups? Is that even possible to guarantee?

We may also see Facebook change its approach to ad targeting because of the discrimination claims. That could have implications beyond recruiting, potentially affecting all forms of online advertising.

Learn more about employment discrimination through Facebook Ads and other recruiting issues:

Check out my webinar on Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring!