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.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?