IBJOpinion

JOSEPH: Beware of screening job applicants with social media

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Viewpoint JosephTech-savvy employers are turning to social-media tools to locate and screen applicants for positions. And with increasing competition for jobs, employers are trying to both find the best applicants available and know as much as possible about them. Frequently, the first step in this process is to simply “Google” an applicant.

Google provides a wealth of information. Maybe too much. Results usually yield Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn or Twitter profiles. And the employer has hit the proverbial jackpot. Or trap for the unwary. Having access to an applicant’s own unedited, unpolished and unembellished profile on a social media site can tell an employer lots of revealing facts about a potential employee’s character and judgment (or lack thereof, especially if there is a self-portrait with a beer bong in hand). Employers are increasingly including the information found on social-media sites in their hiring calculus.

However, these social-media profiles can also tell employers things about an applicant they may not want to know. Information such as the applicant’s age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability; characteristics employers can’t consider if they want to avoid discrimination claims. Most social-media profiles contain at least one picture of the user, so the employer suddenly knows facts it isn’t allowed to ask on an application. Even if an employment decision isn’t based in any way on illegal discriminatory grounds, once the employer has information in its possession about the candidates’ minority class, they have lost an important defense to claims of discrimination: ignorance of a candidate’s protected status.

A second, but equally important, risk to employers using social-media tools for recruitment purposes are concerns about applicant privacy. The legal ground is shifting regarding whether applicants have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the information they voluntarily post online, regardless of the privacy settings used on their profile. Courts are tending to side with employers with regard to invasion-of-privacy claims made by employees and applicants, with one important caveat: Employers cannot use deceptive means to obtain information about a candidate.

While that may seem obvious, employers have been known to go to great lengths to get access to applicants’ or employees’ profiles. Overzealous “loss prevention” departments have been known to even create falsified profiles on social-media sites so unsuspecting individuals accept a “friend” request and thereby permit full access to pictures, status updates and anything else posted on that profile. Employers should remember a simple rule that applies in the social media context as well as real life—the ends do not always justify the means.

Finally, employers should remember that information available on social-media sites is not reliable. There is the risk of mistaken identity; after all, there are a lot of John Smiths out there. A recent check on Facebook revealed about 228,000 pages with that name. Even my own name had 642 matches. Even if an employer is somehow able to narrow its search results to the correct applicant, social-media sites may not be an accurate source of information about the applicant. Statements, pictures, comments and posts can easily be taken out of context, misconstrued or misunderstood.

Employers may miss out on a loyal, intelligent and diligent employee simply because a childhood friend posted a recollection of shoplifting lip gloss in middle school. Equally risky for employers is making employment decisions based on a so-called “sanitized” profile. Just because a Facebook user doesn’t have pictures of drug use doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

The lesson is to use social media with care and diligence. If a review of social-media sites is part of an employer’s screening process, its use should be well-documented, pursuant to a written policy and applied with consistency. Employers should treat social-media tools with the same seriousness as formal background checks, drug screening and interviewing.

Google may give an employer a wealth of information about a candidate, but that doesn’t mean it is true, current or reliable. Sometimes it is simply better not to know.•

__________

Joseph is partner at Joseph and Turow PC, a local firm specializing in small-business law and entrepreneurial services. She also is an adjunct professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis. For more information, visit www.josephturow.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT