Page 1 of 2
AI-enabled smart glasses – which combine eyewear with real-time audio, video, and AI functionality – are now entering the workplace. They provide productivity and accessibility benefits by allowing users to capture information, receive prompts, and interact with AI systems hands-free. But they also introduce legal risks that your existing policies and regulatory frameworks were likely not designed to address. As adoption increases, you should evaluate whether your existing workplace rules and compliance frameworks are equipped to manage the legal, privacy, and operational implications of AI-enabled eyewear. The following Insight provides answers to common questions employers are asking as AI glasses enter the workplace.
Do AI Wearables Raise Workplace Recording Concerns?
Yes – and in many cases, the risks are more significant than employers initially realize.
Unlike smartphones, AI-enabled glasses may:
In many instances, smart glasses are indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear, making it difficult for managers or coworkers to determine whether recording is occurring. This creates enforcement challenges and potential compliance exposure if workplace communications are captured without authorization.
The risk is heightened by state recording laws, which vary across jurisdictions. Eleven states require all-party consent before conversations may be recorded. If an employee uses AI glasses to record workplace discussions without proper consent, the employer may face legal exposure, particularly where confidential internal meetings or customer-facing interactions are captured. Even if the employer did not direct or approve the recording, a lack of clear policies or enforcement protocols may complicate response efforts and increase litigation risk.
Do Restrictions on AI Glasses Raise NLRA Concerns?
Not necessarily.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. AI smart glasses, by their nature, typically include the ability to record audio and video, take photographs, and sometimes even stream content in real time. These functions may be analogous to those found in cell phones and other electronic devices previously considered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In certain circumstances, recording workplace conditions may qualify as protected activity. This is particularly true where the recording documents safety concerns, harassment, discrimination, or union-related activity, and is undertaken to further a group interest, such as preserving evidence for collective action.
The NLRB 2023 Stericylce standard remains in effect despite recent guidance from the Board’s General Counsel, and it means that labor officials will scrutinize even facially neutral workplace policies that prohibit recording in the workplace. The current standard says that workplace rules are presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could interpret them as chilling protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA. To overcome this presumption, employers have to demonstrate that the rule is narrowly tailored to address a legitimate and substantial business interest such as trade secrets, confidentiality, or customer privacy,
With this in mind, employers should review their policies governing AI glasses to ensure they are narrowly tailored and clearly tied to legitimate business justifications so as not to infringe on employees’ Section 7 rights.
Do AI Glasses Create Data Security Risks?
Quite possibly. Data security risks associated with AI-enabled wearables could be significant and, in some cases, difficult to detect.
AI-enabled glasses could capture proprietary processes, trade secrets, internal communications, and customer or patient data. Since these devices often connect to third-party AI platforms, information may be transmitted, stored, or processed outside the employer’s direct control.
Once data leaves the organization’s internal systems, questions arise regarding retention practices, secondary use, security safeguards, and regulatory compliance. Employers may have limited visibility into how that information is handled, which can create exposure under confidentiality agreements, trade secret laws, and applicable privacy statutes.
Organizations in regulated industries, including healthcare and financial services, should be especially cautious. The inadvertent capture or transmission of protected or confidential information through wearable AI devices may implicate industry-specific privacy and security obligations.
How Do Disability Accommodation Obligations Apply to AI Glasses?
Many AI glasses are designed to look and function like ordinary eyewear and may even contain prescription lenses. While the glasses themselves may provide vision correction, the AI functionality embedded within the device is a separate consideration.
At present, ordinary prescription eyewear does not constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and employers are not required to permit AI-enabled glasses simply because they include corrective lenses. In other words, presence of prescription lenses does not, by itself, transform the device into a protected accommodation.
However, this may change since wearable AI glasses can function as assistive technology. Emerging AI glasses now can provide real-time transcription, object recognition, navigation assistance, visual magnification, which may be in the future considered workplace accommodations for individuals with visual, auditory, or neurological impairments. As the technology continues to evolve, employers may consider conducting a case-by-case assessment if you identify the possible need or request for an accommodation. This may include evaluating whether the device is medically necessary, whether it addresses a documented limitation, whether there are alternative accommodations available, and whether the use of AI glasses presents safety, confidentiality, or operational concerns.
Can Employers Prohibit AI Glasses in the Workplace?
In most cases, yes.
Employers generally may restrict or prohibit AI-enabled glasses and other wearable devices where the policy supports legitimate business interests. Common justifications include maintaining workplace safety, protecting confidential or proprietary information, safeguarding customer, employee, or patient privacy, and ensuring compliance with applicable recording and data privacy laws.
If an employer decides to implement a ban, consistent enforcement is essential. Any uneven application of the policy may give rise to disparate treatment or retaliation claims.
What Steps Should Employers Take Now?
Given these new slate of risks, many employment law firms recommend you consider the following steps.
1. Review and Consider Updating Applicable Policies
2. Consider Building an Accommodation Framework That Considers AI Glasses
3. Train Managers on AI Glasses and How to Deal With Them
4. Consult Experienced Legal Counsel
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments related to AI wearable technology.
We won’t pretend to have a crystal ball when it comes to what will happen in the labor and employment legal landscape in the new year, especially given the nature of modern-day politics. But despite the uncertainty, Fisher & Phillips’ developed their best predictions to help you plan for 2026. You can read the entire FP Workplace Law 2026 Forecast here, or you can dive into this Insight for the top 10 predictions pulled from our report.
Government Relations: DC Will Be Full Speed Ahead Once Again
The second Trump administration has been operating at a breakneck pace and there are no signs of that changing in 2026, especially with control of Congress on the line. The White House is aware that its agenda would face additional roadblocks if Republicans were to lose control of either the House or the Senate, so there will be concerted effort to move forward with the president’s priorities as soon as possible in the new year. This includes confirming judges to benches across the country (and potentially the Supreme Court if Justices Thomas or Alito retires), continued deportation efforts (especially given ICE’s boosted budget), and reducing the size of the federal government.
Immigration: An H-1B Lottery Overhaul is Coming
A growing series of pressures on the H-1B system in 2025 already brought heightened investigations, new fee requirements, intensified employer scrutiny, and a sweeping new social media vetting requirement for H-1B workers and their families.
In 2026, it is predicted that DHS will replace the current random H-1B cap lottery with a weighted selection system that gives higher-wage positions better odds of being chosen, potentially as soon as the March 2026 cap season. Even if litigation slows implementation this coming year, it’s likely to take effect during this administration. The change will heavily favor employers able to offer Level III–IV wages, making it harder for startups, non-profits, and entry-level roles to secure visas. This will force many organizations to rethink compensation strategies and diversify their global talent pipelines.
Artificial Intelligence: Bias Audits Will Become a Must-Have for Employers
Despite a recent executive order targeting “onerous” state AI laws, employers will continue to face a growing patchwork of state and local laws focused on combating AI bias in hiring and the workplace. And an AI bias audit is one of the most effective ways to identify and mitigate risk given the evolving state of AI-related laws springing up around the country. Indeed, plaintiffs’ attorneys are already using the absence of an audit as evidence of negligence or discriminatory design.
Wage and Hour/Pay Equity: State Enforcement to Step Up
States with robust wage and hour and wage payment laws (such as CA, IL, NJ, NY, WA) will continue to aggressively enforce their laws during a period when DOL enforcement activities may decline (in part, due to a reduction in the number of investigators). On the other hand, expect federal enforcement to continue to take a business-friendly approach, and expand the multiple compliance assistance programs it rolled out in 2025.
Fisher & Phillip’s also anticipates a noticeable uptick in pay equity litigation, fueled by well-publicized gender pay settlements and pro-plaintiff decisions in states with robust pay equity statutes. Use the F&P Pay Equity and Transparency Map to track state developments on pay discrimination laws.
Workplace Safety: New Leaders Promise a Business-Friendly Approach
New leadership will mean a new day for employers. Now that David Keeling is in place as the new head of OSHA and Wayne Palmer has been confirmed to lead MSHA, it is expected that efforts to increase outreach to industry will begin. For example, F&P predicts OSHA will issue few, if any, press releases after an employer is cited for safety violations. We also expect fewer regulations to be proposed or promulgated.
Labor Relations: The NLRB Will Begin Dismantling the Biden-Era Board’s Legacy
The Board should finally return to a legal quorum by early 2026. It will likely seek to overturn several significant Biden-era cases in the months thereafter, including rulings that addressed restrictions on workplace conduct rules, remedies available for unfair labor practices, and mandatory captive audience meetings, among other precedent-setting decisions. In response, unions are expected to abandon their reliance on the NLRB. This could mean an increase in labor grievances in union shops. Unions may also revisit recognitional picketing to pressure employers into recognizing them outside the election process.
Sports: Continued Battle Over Student-Athlete “Employee” Status
Both the DOL and NLRB were directed by President Donald Trump to clarify the status of student-athletes as part of a July executive order. While it’s unlikely the Trump administration will be willing to upend the current college sports model by deeming college athletes as employees who have collective bargaining rights and overtime protections, guidance from these agencies on the issue has yet to materialize.
Privacy and Cyber: Wiretapping Litigation Wave Will Keep Churning
In addition to continued proliferation of privacy laws at the state level, we expect the plaintiffs’ bar to continue the wave of wiretapping and related claims against businesses relating to the use of tracking technology on company websites.
While the statutes being used as ammunition in these lawsuits predate the internet, courts are allowing them to move forward across the country, exposing businesses to expensive class action litigation. This trend began primarily in California, but it has already expanded to other states. It is anticipated that it will continue to do so, unless or until state legislatures or courts directly address the application of wiretapping and other long-standing laws (that were intended for other purposes) to the use of tracking technology on websites.
International: Expanded Protections for Non-Traditional Workers
Multinational businesses should prepare for upcoming regulatory changes related to non-traditional workers, including freelancers and gig workers. For example:
Construction: AI Claims, Immigration Enforcement to Increase
As the adoption of drones and AI-driven tools become commonplace, issues around privacy, data protection, off-the-clock work, and workplace surveillance will require contractors to develop clearer policies and disclosures. Additionally, we expect wage-theft enforcement actions to expand in more states, leading to more audits and increasing the importance of compliance and record-keeping.
Increased I-9 audits and ongoing jobsite raids will also require employers to continue to be vigilant about verification and compliance. Fisher Phillips offers a Rapid Response Team for DHS Raids to support employers when an workplace enforcement action occurs at your business.
Courtesy of Fisher Phillips
While new presidents are typically judged based on their actions in their first 100 days, the current Trump administration has moved at such a rapid speed that we think another recap is needed at the halfway point. Here’s your employer cheat sheet on Trump’s first 50 days.
DEI and Equal Opportunity Compliance
Affirmative Action and Federal Contract Compliance
Department of Labor + Workplace Safety
Employee Defection and Trade Secrets
Artificial Intelligence
Education
Conclusion
The Trump administration has showed no signs of slowing down, and we expect that to continue throughout the next 50 days and beyond.
Many employer handbooks and policies likely should be reviewed and revised following a landmark Aug. 2 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Stericycle.
“This ruling, in a word, is huge,” said David Pryzbylski, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis. “This decision may invalidate countless workplace rules maintained by private-sector employers—whether they are unionized or not. It applies to all companies covered by the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA], which is the vast majority of employers in America.”
The NLRA does not apply to federal or state governmental units, railroads or airlines.
Employers need to create documentary evidence of the justification for their work rules before an unfair labor practice charge is filed, recommended Harry Johnson III, an attorney with Morgan Lewis in Los Angeles and former NLRB member.
In Stericycle, an administrative law judge found that the employer violated the NLRA by maintaining certain rules for its employees that addressed personal conduct, conflicts of interest and confidentiality of harassment complaints. The NLRB announced a new standard for whether work rules violate the NLRA and sent the case back to the judge to consider the ruling in light of the new standard.
Under that standard, if an employee could reasonably interpret the work rule to have a coercive meaning, the NLRB general counsel would have met her burden to prove that the rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their NLRA rights. The general counsel, currently Jennifer Abruzzo, is independent from the board and responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases under the NLRA.
The employer’s intent in maintaining a work rule is immaterial, the NLRB wrote. The board instead clarified it will interpret the rule from the perspective of an employee who is subject to the policy, economically dependent on the employer and contemplates engaging in protected concerted activity.
Concerted activity includes talking with one or more co-workers about wages and benefits or other working conditions, circulating a petition asking for better hours, participating in a concerted refusal to work in unsafe conditions, openly talking about pay and benefits, and joining with co-workers to talk directly to the employer, an agency or the media about problems in the workplace, according to the NLRB.
It’s hard to imagine the general counsel won’t be able to prove that a rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their NLRA rights, said Phil Wilson, president and general counsel with the Labor Relations Institute, a labor and employee relations consulting firm in Broken Arrow, Okla.
If the general counsel provides such proof, the rule is presumptively unlawful. However, the employer may counter the presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer can’t advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule. If the employer proves this, the work rule will be found lawful.
However, “with little actual guidance about the meaning of the phrases above, needless to say, it is an incredibly uphill battle if an employer finds itself trying to rebut the presumption,” said Jason Reisman, an attorney with Blank Rome in Philadelphia.
In addition, the Stericycle opinion discarded previous NLRB decisions holding that certain types of policies were inherently lawful, regardless of the precise language in which the policy is expressed, in favor of evaluation of each challenged policy on a case-by-case basis, said Peter Spanos, an attorney with Taylor English Duma in Atlanta. Policies that are no longer deemed by the board always lawful to maintain are investigative-confidentiality rules, nondisparagement rules and rules prohibiting outside employment.
“Employee handbooks and policies that were adopted or revised based on prior guidance from the NLRB may now be subject to challenge,” he said.
The decision probably will be appealed. The appellate process can take many months or even years, Pryzbylski added. “In the meantime, the board will be enforcing this new standard, so employers face the risk of having their policies invalidated if they do not revisit them to ensure they are drafted in a compliant manner,” he said. “To the extent they are found to have unlawful rules, it could result in backpay awards in the event an employee is terminated pursuant to such a rule, have negative effects on a union election outcome, as well as other penalties.”
Plus, in most cases, the NLRB does not follow a federal appeals court ruling outside of that court’s jurisdiction until the Supreme Court weighs in, if it does. “So, that may favor companies taking a fresh look at their policies sooner rather than later,” Pryzbylski said.
Examples of policies that likely need to be reviewed and rewritten to be aligned with the new board standard, according to Spanos, include work rules:
All HR professionals should work with their labor counsel to audit current employment policies for compliance with the new standard and to keep up-to-date on board decisions that will apply the Stericycle standard in coming months.
The bottom line is that many policies will be under new and intense scrutiny by the NLRB, and employers should be aware of the new standard and review and update their policies accordingly.
The recorded presentation of AAG’s 2023 Educational Seminar held on April 11, 2023 is now available for viewing.
Guest Speaker and Attorney Keith Hammond, of Hammond Law Center, focused on changes in employment law that have occurred over the past year including a few new regulations that could affect your business which will go into effect this summer as well as non-competes and changes from the DOL, NLRB, and OSHA.
This seminar is also approved for 2 Professional Development Credits (PDCs) with SHRM for all attendees.
The recorded presentation of AAG’s 2022 Education Seminar held on April 7, 2022 is now available for viewing.
Guest Speaker and Attorney Keith Hammond, of Hammond Law Center, focuses on changes in employment law that have occurred over the past year. Some of the topics addressed include new regulations under the Biden administration, as well as how the new DOL Secretary Marty Walsh and Democratic controlled NLRB could impact your business.
This seminar is also approved for 2 Professional Development Credits (PDCs) with SHRM for all attendees.
I understand that your first thought may be that this article has nothing to do with your business and you can skip it.
Please read before you disregard. Your employees will soon receive a union message! You have a short amount of time to decide if that message comes from your organization or if you will wait and your employees will learn all they need to know about unions from the Federal Task Force, whose very existence is to encourage unionizing.
I understand the desire to avoid the topic of unions as in my thirty years of working as an Employer Advocate, I’ve skimmed over union articles, and barely skimmed at that. Unions have never been a real issue for most Florida employers, unless you are Disney or a public service entity/municipality. Yes, we must work within the regulations and rules around Section 7 rights (protected concerted activity) of the National Labor Relations Act, but unions have never been a concern. Nationally, there has been a steady decline in union activity as the rights of employees have continued to expand. What is the threat now? Why does it matter to you?
Biden vowed to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen” and he appears to be living up to that promise. His first order of business, day one in office, was to fire (and replace) the sitting General Counsel of the NLRB, even though his term was set to expire November 2021. This is the first time in history a President has fired the sitting General Counsel!
Biden nominated Marty Walsh to be our Secretary of Labor. Mr. Walsh has been confirmed by the Senate and is now the first union member in nearly 50 years to run the Department of Labor.
Biden’s most recent act to abide by the union promise was an Executive Order to create a task force to encourage worker organizing and collective bargaining.
VP Harris has been tapped to chair the Federal Task Force. The task force has no more than 180 days from the Executive Order to submit recommendations for actions to promote worker organizing and to increase union density.
Most business owners and HR professionals have no history in dealing with a partial workforce rebellion. This could happen in individual companies or it could be a wider industry movement in a city or region. Again, most of us have no history in dealing with unions or collective bargaining, so where do you start? What are you supposed to do and how?
You may wish to start with training your managers. They typically have the pulse of your employees and will be the first to know if organizing starts and will likely be the ones your employees go to with questions. Mostly importantly, they need to know how to report, monitor and legally respond to employees. A manager saying “They will shut this company down, before allowing a union in” is not an appropriate response and could cause you much bigger legal problems.
Next, you will want to talk with your employees. In our current environment, they need to be communicated with regularly, regardless of union activity. It seems, we have spent most of the past year with social media, news outlets and the government focused on dividing the country and our citizens. We’ve been divided by our race, gender, religion, political party, mask and/or COVID vaccine status, views on Second Amendment rights, sexual preference, or how you identify. The media has provided you with a multitude of options to cause division in your community. Wouldn’t it be nice if employees didn’t have to endure division at their place of employment?
Communicating with employees to remind them that they do not need an intermediary to speak with their manager or the company owner is a must! You want to stress that you have good open communication between managers and employees. Remind employees that you offer competitive wages and benefits. If any of this is not true, now is the time to fix it as it will be good for your company as a whole, even if the taskforce doesn’t target your industry. Union organizers will use any real (or imagined) crack in your company’s framework to convince employees of how much better they would be with a union on their side.
You may also consider modernizing your policies in regard to your position on unions, while stressing your company’s open door policy as well as a no solicitation policy.
Remember your people are the reason your company exists, and they need to be reminded and shown that they are valued and appreciated.
Being proactive now is one of the keys to your success when it comes to preventing a union from walking through your front door.
Let us know if you would like any help with implementing a Union Avoidance management training program. With AAG on your side, we will help to ensure your team is prepared to answer employee questions.Courtesy of Fisher Phillips LLP
2018 has seen quite a few changes in labor and employment law. But with the New Year having just rung in, it’s time to look forward rather than backward. The question on the tip of everyone’s tongue is: what’s next? Here are our predictions for what to expect in 2019 when it comes to workplace law.
Expect More Class Actions
We’re going to start out with the bad news. Because of the potential for a big payout, class and collective actions are a favorite for plaintiffs’ attorneys. You should not expect that to change in 2019.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation has opened up even more avenues for potential wage and hour claims in the Golden State, and the trend could hit the rest of the country, too. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the de minimus doctrine under state law and held that employees must be paid for off-the-clock work that regularly lasts several minutes per day. While the California Supreme Court refused to shut the door entirely on the de minimus doctrine, it noted that technological advances should help employers track small bits of time, and that employers can restructure work to avoid off-the-clock time.
Employers outside of California may see plaintiffs’ attorneys attempting to use the same rationale employed by the California Supreme Court to argue that the de minimus doctrine should not apply in the circumstances of their case. Moreover, with more employees having remote access to emails and other mobile platforms, the number of ways for employees to argue that they were working off the clock has increased.
The Ascendance Of Arbitration Agreements
One way for employers to avoid class actions is through arbitration agreements. Last May, the Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis that mandatory class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable. As a result, you can expect to see an increase in the number of companies rolling out updated agreements to include class action waiver language. (Note: if you have not had your arbitration agreement reviewed since May when Epic Systems came out, make it your New Year’s Resolution to do so.)
However, while popular with employers, arbitration agreements are decidedly not so with the plaintiffs’ bar. Expect to see plaintiffs’ counsel becoming more creative in challenging arbitration agreements on grounds related to unconscionability.
We may even be starting to see a backlash against arbitration agreements. Most recently, some law students have been pressuring big law firms to do away with them when it comes to their own hires. And last year, the California legislature passed a law banning mandatory employment arbitration agreements for claims arising out of alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or California Labor Code. Although the bill was ultimately vetoed by outgoing Governor Jerry Brown, expect to see the fight continue in 2019.
Don’t Look To Congress To Lead The Way
With Democrats controlling the House, and Republicans controlling the Senate and Executive Branch, you can expect that most employment legislation will be dead on arrival. When it comes to innovative legislation impacting the workplace, you should look to the states to lead the way. This is not to say that there won’t be any changes to labor and employment law on the federal level in 2019. However, we expect the most significant changes to be made by agencies (such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.) rather than Congress.
NLRB Will Narrow The Definition Of Joint Employer
One of those agencies—the NLRB—made noise last year when it published a proposed rule that would alter the definition of joint employment to make it more difficult to hold multiple businesses responsible for alleged labor and employment law violations by staffing companies, franchisees, and other related organizations. Expect to see continued movement and updates on this proposed rule in 2019.
But before getting too excited at any potential changes, you should keep in mind that states may have their own rules regarding joint employment that could differ from what the NLRB comes up with. Any new rules may not affect your organization’s liability under state law.
USDOL Has A Full Plate
Another agency you should keep an eye on is the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). Not only is the USDOL considering its own joint employment rule, but the agency has proposed regulations regarding the regular rate of pay and white collar exemptions (also known as the “overtime” rule).
The regular rate of pay is of particular importance to employers because it is used to calculate the overtime rate of non-exempt employees. While we know that changes to the proposed regulations are targeting sections 7(e)(2) and 7(g)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the USDOL has been rather vague about what the proposed regulations will look like. The USDOL states that they aim to “provide employers more flexibility in the compensation and benefits packages they offer employees” and “lessen litigation regarding the regular rate.”
The regulation relating to the white collar exemption is less opaque. As employers may recall, the minimum salary threshold for white collar exemptions was supposed to increase from $455 per week (or $23,660 annually) to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually), with the amount to be updated every three years. However, right before these changes were scheduled to take effect in December 2016, a federal court blocked their implementation. Under a new administration, we expect that we will see a more modest proposed increase in the white collar exemption in 2019—perhaps in the low $600s per week.
Paid Sick Leave Will Continue To Be On Trend
Although there are no federal laws mandating paid sick leave (yet), you can expect that paid sick and family leave will continue to be a big issues, with states and localities picking up the slack. Right now, 11 states and the District of Columbia require paid sick leave. Additionally, various cities and counties have stepped in where states have not provided for such leave or to give more generous benefits than the state.
You generally should anticipate an expansion of paid sick leave benefits in 2019. The New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act went into effect October, while Michigan, Washington, and Westchester County (NY) have paid sick leave laws going into effect this year.
While some municipalities in Texas want to get in on this trend, a Texas appeals courtruled the Austin Paid Sick Leave Ordinance violates the state constitution because it preempts the Texas Minimum Wage Act. San Antonio passed its own sick leave ordinance in 2018, but it may only be a matter of time before it, too, is challenged in court.
Privacy Issues Remain Paramount
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in May 2018, ushering in sweeping reforms for companies that do business in the EU or employ EU residents. The GDPR threatens strict penalties for non-compliance—up to the greater of 20 million Euro or 4 percent of global annual turnover in the prior year. Having been in effect less than a year, it is still not clear how fines will be assessed and what the potential exposure will be for companies that are found to be non-compliant. As 2019 progresses, you can expect to see many investigations that began in 2018 come to a close, and we’ll begin to get a better idea of how regulatory authorities will assess fines for non-compliance—including whether the fearsome 4 percent penalty will be assessed.
Lest you think the major developments in privacy are safely across the ocean in Europe, you can be sure there will be plenty of action closer to home in 2019. The Illinois Supreme Court currently has a case before it over whether a technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Act (BIPA) gives standing to sue absent a person suffering a concrete injury. If the court answers in the affirmative, you can expect to see a continued proliferation of BIPA class actions.
Further, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, which goes into effect at the beginning of 2020. While the law is not as comprehensive as the GDPR, California employers will soon need to figure out this year if it applies to them. You should take compliance seriously: the CCPA allows consumers whose rights have been violated under the Act to bring suit for actual damages or statutory penalties (whichever is greater) under a mechanism somewhat akin to a California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. You can expect the proliferation of CCPA lawsuits will be on next year’s list of predictions.
The bombs people drop on social media can detonate right away or lurk like hidden land mines. In some cases, someone is terminated from a current job for recent problematic posts. Take comedian Roseanne Barr, for example, whose tweet this spring referring to Valerie Jarrett was deemed racist and deleted immediately, but ABC executives still dropped her from her sitcom.
Or take Kenneth Storey, a University of Tampa visiting assistant professor who lost his job days after his tweet last summer suggested that the Texas victims of Hurricane Harvey were experiencing “instant karma” for voting Republican. Storey deleted his tweet, but not before a screenshot of it had gone viral.
In other instances, individuals lose a job for social media posts they made long before their employment began. That’s what happened to “Guardians of the Galaxy” director James Gunn, who was fired in July after comments he wrote on Twitter several years ago involving pedophilia and rape resurfaced. Even though Gunn said he regretted his words, it wasn’t enough to save his job.
When an employee posts something offensive, HR professionals are often on the front line of protecting the employer’s brand. Hiring managers also may be expected to act as defenders of the company if a candidate’s online posts have the potential to reflect poorly on the organization’s image.
Attorney Eric Meyer, who blogs about workplace issues, tracks news about employees whose offensive social media comments cause them to lose their jobs. He and other experts believe that this type of termination is becoming increasingly common.
“A firefighter, for example, who puts out a racist meme … CEOs, public figures, you name it. The frequency with which I see incidents of people getting fired doesn’t seem to have declined. I don’t see any evidence that it’s getting corrected anytime soon,” says Meyer, a partner at FisherBroyles in Philadelphia.
Adding pressure to HR’s role is the ubiquity of social media and the speed at which comments can erupt into full-blown crises. “Sometimes, it’s not even a 24-hour news cycle anymore—it’s a 15-minute one,” says Betty Lochner, an HR consultant and owner of Cornerstone Coaching and Training in Olympia, Wash. “If you jump in there and get involved in a conversation that would’ve petered out on its own, that isn’t the best response either.”
But doing nothing may not be a viable option when business leaders are subject to intense pressure to terminate an employee who’s behaving badly. Determining how to respond is no easy task. HR professionals and executives must weigh the potential damage to a company’s image and reputation against their desire to foster a supportive workforce that doesn’t micromanage workers’ actions.
Ultimately, business leadership must determine which behaviors cross the line. That evaluation process could begin whenever an employer learns about a potentially problematic post. “There’s not a cutoff or a statute of limitations for information,” says Jeff Polsky, an employment lawyer with Fox Rothschild in San Francisco.
Crossing the Line
The Internet has obscured the boundaries between people’s personal and professional lives, as more workers friend and follow their colleagues. The result is that employees may become privy to details about their co-workers’ off-duty activities, including their political affiliation, religious beliefs, drug use or participation in controversial causes, that otherwise would’ve remained private.
“Social media has opened the door for us to know people’s intimate views on things that are not work-related,” says Joey Kolasinsky, SHRM-SCP, HR manager at Encore Electric Inc. in Denver.
As people conduct more business and socializing online, Facebook and Twitter have become 21st century watercoolers, where workers flock to grouse, joke and vent. “These are conversations that previously would have happened in someone’s home or in a bar or on a soccer field, and it would have gone under the radar,” says attorney John Polson, a partner with Fisher Phillips in Irvine, Calif.
But in today’s hyperconnected culture, an online comment or photo can spread like wildfire from one co-worker to another and then to multitudes of strangers.
In the early days of social media, business leaders thought they could keep tight control over workers’ use of the platforms. Less than a decade ago, many companies introduced policies forbidding workers from making any negative comments online about the employer, says attorney Mark F. Kluger. Some employers even required workers to supply the passwords to their personal social media accounts—a practice that is now illegal in some states.
But starting around 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) began fielding complaints from workers who had been disciplined for their online behavior. The NLRB warned employers that their social media policies could not punish workers for discussing wages, working conditions and terms of employment, all of which are considered “protected concerted activity.” That can include complaints about management, low wages and lazy colleagues, and those protections extend to nonunionized workers as well.
In addition, five states—California, Colorado, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota—protect employees from retaliation for engaging in lawful off-duty conduct and political activities, no matter how distasteful their colleagues may consider their affiliations. “If any companies in those states were to terminate an employee because they were a member of the Nazi Party, they might have a problem,” says Kluger, an attorney with Kluger Healey in Florham Park, N.J.
Workers can, however, be axed for engaging in hate speech and making disparaging comments about protected categories of race, religion and gender. They can also be shown the door for disclosing confidential information and trade secrets, defaming competitors or misrepresenting the company. In general, though, a business has great latitude in deciding whether to terminate for online behavior.
“It is entirely case by case,” Lochner says. “A company has to decide: What’s its reach? What’s the damage? There is no black-and-white answer.”
Don’t wait until a crisis erupts to decide which types of off-duty conduct are unacceptable. HR professionals, company leaders and other decision-makers should agree on a list of core company values so that they will know which behaviors violate organizational principles, Lochner says.
Setting A Policy
A social media policy and related training can help employees better understand the importance of demonstrating professionalism online and provide guidance on what types of online conduct may lead to termination. The HR team at ad agency RPA in Santa Monica, Calif., provides its 750 employees with a company policy and training on managing perceptions in the workplace. A recent session covered how offhand online remarks can affect someone’s image and reputation.
When employees misstep, the gaffes are usually due to what Small describes as “a lack of awareness” as opposed to malice. In one case, an employee saw a negative comment a colleague made online about the services of one of their company’s clients. The two employees were Facebook friends, and the content appeared on a personal page. The colleague contacted Small, who met with the person who made the post and explained why it was inappropriate. Mortified, the worker apologized. “We don’t want to kill free speech, but we want to be respectful of the clients we represent,” Small says.
Even a comprehensive social media policy cannot anticipate every instance where it might be applied. “There’s no one-size-fits-all,” Polson says. “You need a policy tailored to your specific business. And you don’t want to be too broad; you don’t have to have a policy for every decision you make.”
An effective and comprehensive social media policy should be included in your employee handbook. The policy should ask employees to: