By Bianca Lager
www.ParalegalToday.com Q3 - 2017 3
Social Media Background Screenings:
Potential Benefits and Easily Avoided Risks
When social media first entered the mainstream in the early
2000s, about 400 million people in the world had access to
the internet. To put that into perspective, Facebook alone
now has almost 25 percent of the world’s population as active
monthly users, crossing over two billion in 2017. In less than
two decades, the prevalence of social media in our society
has grown and become almost ubiquitous in our daily lives.
As this change in our society has developed and its relevancy cemented,
businesses have explored various ways to capitalize, exploit, and benefit from
its use. One of the most intriguing ideas about social media is the most basic
of human curiosity – when we look at a person’s social media profile, what
have we learned? What insights do we gain? And, for those making employment
decisions, what can we learn that will tell us more about a person to
whom we are considering offering a job?
Knowing this, recent headlines have shown us that what you broadcast on
social media matters. The tragic events in Charlottesville, Virginia in August
2017 displayed an array of consequences for some, particularly because of
social media. One rally participant lost his job after pictures of him marching
in the rally were posted on social media. A Massachusetts police officer was
disciplined for writing “Hahahaha love this” on Facebook in response to a
story about a car striking and killing counter-protester Heather Heyer. And,
in February 2017, a Texas branch of a large and well-known childcare company
fired a teacher who posted a number of anti-Semitic tweets, including
one encouraging that Jewish people be killed.
This type of content falls into the categories of every human resources department’s
common buzzwords: harassment, hostility, bullying, and discrimination.
Beyond intolerant or derogatory statements against groups of people
in a protected class, employers have expressed concern over candidates
whose online behavior could be in violation of a code of conduct or social media
policy such as sexually explicit behavior, violence, or illegal activities such
as drugs or theft. This online behavior can have real life consequences once a
co-worker takes offense or, worse, becomes a victim. Should there be evidence
of any type of indication of these behaviors before they affect the workplace,
an organization could be in a great deal of trouble for negligence.
In the world of employment, social media can feel like a cross section of potential
relevant information to workplace concerns, like internal harassment
or external negative publicity, and a potential invasion into an employee’s
personal life. The concern for invasion of privacy has merit, since many indi-
“... social media content,
with its expansive and
easily available shared
information, gives employers
another tool when
considering whether
a potential candidate
is the right fit.”
viduals on social media publically share their sexual
orientation, marital status, which church they
attend, and many other pieces of information that
are considered when identifying to which protected
classes one might belong. Protected by both federal
and state law from employment discrimination, this
type of information used in a hiring decision is a
violation that can open a Pandora ’s Box of lawsuits
for any employer.
Most employers have long considered background
checks an essential element of their recruiting and
hiring process—helping ensure candidates are
truly qualified for their intended positions, offering
protection from negligent hiring lawsuits, and
excluding individuals who might damage the organization’s
reputation or brand, diminish employee
morale, or even endanger the safety of co-workers,
customers or others.
According to CareerBuilder, 75 percent of employers
say they have hired the wrong person and the
average cost of one bad hire was in the range of
$17,000. Their research shows that because of this
common and expensive occurrence, 72 percent of
employers conduct some sort of background check
on every new employee. Bad hires can be considered
someone who doesn’t fit in or perform their job
duties, or, worst-case scenario, commits a class of
/www.ParalegalToday.com