Workplace policies on tweeting

By Nedra Rhone

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

On Wednesday, CNN analyst Roland Martin was suspended for a Twitter post during the Super Bowl airing of David Beckham’s H&M commercial. Martin’s 109 character Tweet -- techno speak for succinct Twitter updates -- read “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!” The message was perceived by watchdog groups as an anti-gay slur.

Enlarge photo

Haraz N. Ghanbari, AP In a May 14, 2010 photo Roland Martin, wearing an ascot, adjusts his collar before a news segment in Washington. CNN suspended political analyst Martin on Wednesday Feb. 8, 2012 for "offensive" tweets during the Super Bowl

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) demanded Martin’s removal from the network. CNN responded by suspending Martin indefinitely, and by Wednesday evening, Martin had agreed to a meeting with GLAAD.

Martin supporters say he is being deprived of his rights under the First Amendment, but Martin is just one of hundreds of employees -- some more visible than others -- to get slapped by an employer for activities on social media, raising the question of what should or should not be considered private in the online world.

"We are seeing a lot more of this in the last 18 months," said Alex Putman, vice-president of social media for the Society for Human Resource Management Atlanta, an organization for human resource professionals. "Companies are more aware of what is being tweeted."

He cited a contract worker in Atlanta who recently was terminated after tweeting a negative comment about her employer the first day on the job. Social media is the public domain, said Putman, and while some companies may not have policies governing each social media platform, they default to existing policies about how the company should be represented in public.

It only took eight hours last spring for Atlanta radio personality Chadd Scott to lose his job after tweeting about delays on an Atlanta-bound Delta Airlines flight. At the time, Scott worked for 680 The Fan radio station. In an interview with local TV stations, Scott said his bosses told him to stop the derogatory tweets because Delta was threatening to pull its advertising from the station. By the time Scott arrived home that evening, he was jobless.

Despite a 10-year history of terminations related to social media, the law has been remarkably slow to catch up.

"The laws with respect to social media and what an employer can and cannot do varies from state to state," said Eric L. Barnum, a partner at law firm Schiff Hardin, who speaks regularly on the topic of social media in the workplace. In some states it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for lawful off-duty conduct, but that is not the case in Georgia -- or Texas, where Martin is based, Barnum said.

Employers and employees are keenly aware of the challenges presented by social media in the workplace, but they aren't always prepared for it. "As a community and as a legal community, we haven't really developed a comprehensive approach to social media and what the laws on social media are going to be," Barnum said.

And so, there continue to be instances when an employee posts questionable content to Facebook, Twitter or a blog, is later surprised when his or her employer hands out walking papers.

Martin's fate at CNN remains to be seen, but Barnum sets straight anyone who thinks Martin's First Amendment rights have been violated.

"The First Amendment and all the Bill of Rights guarantees a right from government oppression," he said. "Neither you nor I have the right of free speech when it comes to our private employers."