“Say You’re Sorry or Go to Jail”: One Judge’s Unique Approach to Facebook Harassment

Sasha VanDeGrift by Sasha VanDeGrift

Mark Byron of Hamilton County, Ohio, recently learned that even people who cannot access the private section of his Facebook page knew what he was posting about them, including his soon-to-be-ex-wife Elizabeth Byron.

That proved to be a problem for Bryon. Byron’s divorce from Mrs. Byron, pending before the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court, has been a contentious one. The couple has fought over issues related to their young son, including visitation. Mrs. Byron accused Byron of verbally abusing and threatening her, causing the Magistrate to issue a protective order against Byron. The protective order barred Byron from causing his wife “mental abuse, harassment, [or] annoyance.”

Byron, upset that Mrs. Byron had accused him of being verbally abusing and threatening her, wrote on his Facebook wall: “…if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husbands [sic] life and take your son’s father away from him completely – all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner…” The Magistrate found that this post violated the protective order and held Byron in contempt.

Byron’s punishment? Byron could choose between spending time in jail or posting a court-approved apology to Mrs. Byron on Facebook everyday for 30 days. Understandably, Mr. Byron chose to apologize. His apology can be seen on the public portion of Byron’s Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/byronphoto).

The Magistrate also ordered Byron to pay over $1,000 in back child support and Mrs. Byron’s attorneys’ fees. Byron likely incurred a significant amount of his own attorneys’ fees in the process.

The Judge adopted the Magistrate’s ruling, a requirement to make the ruling an order. Byron appealed the decision to the First District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. The appeal may take several months to be decided. In the meantime, Byron has another court date set for March 19, 2012 before the Magistrate.

Naturally, this case has sparked a debate about whether the Court actually has the power to force someone to apologize, particularly in such a public forum as on a social media site. Critics of the ruling argue that requiring Byron to choose between apologizing and sending time in jail violates the First Amendment. Proponents of the ruling say that social media harassment has become such a problem that this type of punishment may be the only real deterrent to future incidents.

Regardless of whether a court-ordered apology is an appropriate punishment for Byron’s conduct, Byron could have avoided getting himself into trouble had he not posted what he did on Facebook. Part of what makes this case interesting is that Byron had unfriended his wife at some point before he made this post. But somehow, the wife found out about Byron’s post anyway.

While some have speculated that Mrs. Byron deliberately sought to find negative information on Byron’s Facebook posts, it is also possible that mutual Facebook friends who have not yet been divided in the divorce told Mrs. Byron about the post. Either way, although Mrs. Byron was not intended to ever view the post, she did, as now half of the United States has.

For more on this story, see the Cincinnati Enquirer’s story: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120222/NEWS010702/302210147/Judge-Jail-Facebook-rant.

It cannot be said enough times: be careful with social media. It is a useful tool, just like a chainsaw. If used appropriately, it can help remove large obstacles from your path. If used with wanton abandon, it can end up costing you an arm and a leg.

Employee Handbook Update: Six Common Mistakes to Avoid

  Allison Michael  by Allison Michael

A well-drafted employee handbook is an important tool to reduce employment law liability. In drafting or updating employee handbooks, it is important to keep in mind the purposes of an employee handbook:

  • May serve as key evidence in the legal defense against an employee claim; 
  • Ensures that company policies are in compliance with state and federal laws; 
  • Communicates your company’s expectations regarding employee behavior; 
  • Familiarizes employees with your company: its history, culture, and vision for the future; 
  • Informs employees about the benefits your company provides (i.e., vacation etc.); 
  • Answers frequently asked questions from your employees.

The following are six common mistakes employers sometimes make in the handbook drafting and review process:

  1. Missing or Partial Policies. While most policies are discretionary on the part of an employer (i.e., a dress code policy) there are some policies that must be included in an employee handbook by law (i.e., Family Medical Leave Act policy). 
  2. Internal Contradictions. Over the years, the employee handbook may be reviewed, revised or updated on a piece meal, ad hoc basis. This can result in contradictions between policies. An example of a potentially damaging contradiction is where the handbook contains employment at-will disclaimers, but also states that the employer will always go through progressive discipline steps, in order, prior to discharging an employee. 
  3. Non-Specific Conduct Rules. For the purposes of defending virtually any employment claim, it is important that the prohibited conduct that gave rise to the employee’s discharge was spelled out as clearly as possible to the employee so that there was no question that he or she knew that engaging in the conduct could lead to discharge. For example, it is better to state as a work rule: “Insubordination, including failure or refusal to follow orders of a Supervisor or to carry out assignments or instructions, raising your voice to, threatening or cursing at, or using inappropriate gestures at or near a Supervisor, or disrespecting the authority of a Supervisor in any manner,” rather than simply “Insubordination.” 
  4. Outdated or Inapplicable Policies. Older handbooks or handbooks that were adapted from a purchased “sample handbook” often contain policies that no longer apply or never applied to the majority of employees. If, for example, the company only provides company credit cards to one or two managers and there are over 100 employees, there is no reason to have a two-page policy devoted to the rules pertaining to credit cards in the handbook. Instead, use a separate memo and acknowledgment form devoted to that policy for the few affected employees. 
  5. Too Much Information. This mistake builds on number four above. A handbook is a guide. If a handbook is too detailed and lengthy it can be more difficult for some employees to read, and take away from an employer’s needed flexibility in some circumstances. While there are policies that absolutely should be included in a handbook, including equal opportunity and sexual harassment policies, there are other policies which are better addressed in bulletins or memos to the particular employees affected, such as the credit card policy mentioned in number four above. 
  6. No Signed Acknowledgment. The best drafted handbook in the world may as well have never been written if the employer cannot prove that the employee received and reviewed it. A signed handbook receipt acknowledgment from every employee is essential in demonstrating that the employees were aware of the policies and procedures contained therein, particularly for defending legal claims related to employee discipline and discharge.

Who You Gonna Call? Your cell phone service provider knows…

Sasha VanDeGrift by Sasha VanDeGrift

Think all that data cell phone service providers collect on their customers stays private? Think again…

Recently, the Second District Court of Appeals held that cell phone customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by their cell phone service providers. State v. Neely, 2nd Dist. No. 24317, 2012-Ohio-212. (For the full Opinion, please see the following website: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2012/2012-ohio-212.pdf .)

In Neely, the defendant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine based on the records from his service provider, including:

1) his identity;
2) all of his incoming or outgoing calls; and
3) the duration of those calls.

The defendant moved to suppress that evidence, citing to State v. Smith, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that the police may not search a person’s cell phone without a warrant, even if the person is lawfully under arrest, absent exigent circumstances such as risk to the officer’s safety or imminent destruction of evidence. State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426, 920 N.E.2d 949. The defendant in Neely argued that the Smith case mandated the cell phone records from his service provider be suppressed as well.

The trial court disagreed. The reason? The prosecution followed the procedure set forth by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(B) and obtained a lawful court order for the defendant’s cell phone records from his service provider. In essence, having a court order was analogous to having a warrant.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the Fourth Amendment gave him a privacy interest in his service provider’s records. The Second District flatly rejected this argument, indicating that the United States Supreme Court has taken “pains to reject the claim that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers that they dial from their phones.” The Second District pointed out that the public generally knows that service providers maintain numerical information on customers’ cell phone usage for a variety of legitimate business purposes. Accordingly, “it is too much to believe that telephone subscribers, under these circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret.”

Ultimately, the Second District upheld how the prosecutor obtained the cell phone records and the defendant’s conviction. The Second District remanded the case for the sole purpose of having the trial court re-determine the court costs that the defendant was obligated to pay.

Now, while the Second District has spoken, the Neely case may not be over. The defendant in Neely could ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the Second District’s opinion. It remains to be seen whether the Ohio Supreme Court will find the defendant’s privacy arguments to be matters of great enough public concern to justify accepting the case for review.

While Neely is a criminal case, it serves as a good reminder for all of us that we can never assume that any information known to others is “private.”

So, who are you going to call now?

Interesting article on how Twitter is changing media law

Sasha VanDeGrift by Sasha VanDeGrift

This article does a nice job of highlighting some of the legal issues that can arise out of a 140-character message on Twitter. Sometimes, saying less can get you into more trouble…

Here are five examples that show how Twitter’s unique platform is creating a new set of media rules that are forcing the law to play catch up.

Fired for “Pants on Fire”: When Lies, GPS, and Employee Handbooks Meet

Sasha VanDeGrift by Sasha VanDeGrift

One of the staples of the little kid lexicon is the expression “liar, liar, pants on fire!”  While there appears to be no direct correlation between flaming trousers and someone taking liberties with the truth, there does appear to be a common correlation between lying at work and getting fired.  It might have something to do with employers thinking that if they pay someone, they should be able to trust his or her word.  Silly employers!

Even employers in significant positions of public trust occasionally find their employees’ britches burning.  Case in point: Philip Mordick v. City of Dayton.  In Mordick, the City of Dayton fired Mordick, a police officer, after he filed a false report of his whereabouts while he was on patrol.  Mordick, 2nd Dist. 24663, 2012-Ohio-289 (for the full text of the Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2012/2012-ohio-289.pdf). 

Officer Mordick probably should have realized that his lie was likely to be discovered: he filed the false report in front of another officer, Officer Cash, while they were in the same police cruiser.  When Officer Mordick left the cruiser, ostensibly looking for his wayward girlfriend, Officer Cash contacted their sergeant and informed him that she and Officer Mordick were not at the location that Officer Mordick had reported.  The sergeant verified Officers Mordick and Cash’s location by tracking the cruiser’s GPS unit, confirming that Officer Cash was telling the truth and Officer Mordick had lied. 

When Officer Mordick returned to the cruiser, he called the sergeant, who asked Officer Mordick where he really was.  Officer Mordick admitted his true location.  Then, Officer Mordick drove to the location where he had falsely claimed to be. 

The City of Dayton charged Mordick with several violations of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations (the “Regs”) (basically the employee handbook for the City of Dayton police), including Rule of Conduct 8.5, which specifies:

No officer will knowingly falsify any report, document, or record or cause to be entered any inaccurate, false, or improper information on records, documents, or reports of the Department or of any court or alter any record, document, or report except by a supplemental report, document, or report. If an investigation reveals that an officer has violated this section, their employment with the Dayton Police Department will be terminated.

The City of Dayton found that Officer Mordick had violated the Regs and terminated his employment.  That decision was affirmed by the Civil Services Board, the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, and now by the Second District Court of Appeals.

Most “pants on fire” cases are not this clear-cut.  More importantly, not all policies plainly state that “if you lie about X, we will fire you.”  The takeaway:

  • For employees: lying at work is a bad idea, especially in front of a witness and in a GPS-equipped vehicle.
  • For employers: when the evidence is clear that an employee was lying and you have a very carefully drafted policy specifying that the particular type of lie is grounds for termination, that is strong evidence in favor of termination.  It might seem a little late in the year for New Year’s Resolutions, but it is always advisable to dust off the employee handbook and give it a fresh read. 

Honesty is always the best policy, especially when that policy is clearly spelled out in writing…

Employer Collective Arbitration Prohibited

David Pierce by David Pierce

In a victory for employees, the NLRB recently held in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (Jan. 2012), that an arbitration agreement that prohibits employees from filing class action lawsuits violates the National Labor Relations Act.

In D.R. Horton, the company required employees to sign an agreement that required them to arbitrate their disputes. However, the agreement provided that the arbitrator would not have the power to consolidate claims or award relief on a class basis.

The Claimant’s attorney notified the company that he had been retained to represent a class of employees in a Fair Labor Standards Act case contending that the employees had been improperly classified as exempt and that he wished to arbitrate the dispute. In response, the company cited the class prohibition in the arbitration clause and claimed the notice to arbitrate was ineffective.

The NLRB in a 2-0 decision found that filing a collective or class action claim constituted protective concerted activity which is protected by Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.  Moreover, the Board determined that such an arbitration clause would cause employees to believe they were prohibited from filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge.  Therefore, the Board determined that such arbitration clauses are prohibited. 

The Board’s decision is significant.  It applies to both union and non-union employers. Furthermore, it casts renewed doubt on the utility of employment arbitration clauses as a means of eliminating class action disputes. Such clauses had become more popular in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case enforcing an arbitration provision that prohibited class action lawsuits by members of the public. AT&T Mobility v. Conception, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

Employers are cautioned to have their arbitration clauses reviewed by counsel before asking their employees to sign them.  In addition to problems with clauses that prohibit class actions, courts have found other restrictions in employer/employee arbitration clauses to be unconscionable or unenforceable.   Similarly, companies should carefully consider whether they want to include arbitration clauses as a means of alternative dispute resolution in other business agreements.  This is especially true because the traditional benefits of arbitration (i.e., faster and cheaper resolution) may not be present depending upon how the arbitration provision is drafted.

Are You a State Funded Employer For Workers’ Comp Coverage But Unable to Qualify for Group Rating in the Past?

David  Korte  by David Korte

If so, legal action has been initiated on your behalf in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, suggesting that, by providing discounted premiums to employers that qualified for Group Rating discounts, the Ohio BWC conversely charged unnecessarily high premiums to state fund employers that did not qualify for the discounts. The time frame for which damages are requested begins in July, 2001 and runs for a period of 7 years. At this point, the BWC, as expected, denies inappropriate or inequitable results from the Group Rating discount programs in which many employers have participated through the years.

Many of you may have already received notice of this class action. If you believe you fall into the category of employers affected during the time frame involved, you don’t need to do anything to possibly qualify for damages resulting from the action. However, if you might otherwise qualify for those damages, but don’t wish to partake in same, you must complete written notice, to be filed with the court and with the attorneys for the named parties, in order to be excluded from any economic benefit to be derived from the cause of action. There are benefits and detriments with both options, primarily centering on protecting your company’s individual right to pursue damages under the same theory.