{"id":2561,"date":"2015-02-16T14:07:33","date_gmt":"2015-02-16T19:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jolt.richmond.edu\/?p=2561"},"modified":"2019-03-08T19:52:24","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T00:52:24","slug":"blog-the-new-four-walls-of-the-workplace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/2015\/02\/16\/blog-the-new-four-walls-of-the-workplace\/","title":{"rendered":"Blog: The New Four Walls of the Workplace"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"social-media-488886_640\"<\/a>By: Micala MacRae, Associate Notes and Comments Editor<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has recognized workplace harassment as an actionable claim against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 The rise in social media has created a new medium through which workplace harassment occurs. \u00a0Courts are just beginning to confront the issue of when social media harassment may be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances of a Title VII hostile work environment claim. \u00a0Traditionally, harassment has occurred through face-to-face verbal and physical acts in the workplace. \u00a0However, the changing nature of the workplace has continued to expand with the rise of new technology, which allows employees to stay connected to the work environment at different locations outside the physical boundaries of the office. \u00a0Harassment has moved beyond the physical walls of the workplace to the virtual workplace. \u00a0The broadening conception of the workplace and increasing use of social media in professional settings has expanded the potential employer liability under Title VII.<\/p>\n

Social media has become a powerful communication tool that has fundamentally shifted the way people communicate. \u00a0Employers and employees increasingly utilize social media and social networking sites.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 While companies have turned to social media as a way to increase their business presence and reduce internal communication costs, there has been the consequence of increased social media harassment. \u00a0Although social media and social networking sites are not new forms of communication, their legal implications are just now coming into focus.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Several cases have addressed hostile work environment claims stemming from other forms of electronic communication, there are few addressing claims based on social media communications.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc.<\/em>, was one of the first courts to consider whether an employer is responsible for preventing employee harassment over social media.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In Blakey<\/em>, an airline employee filed a hostile work environment claim arising from allegedly defamatory statements published by co-workers on her employer\u2019s electronic bulletin board.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 The electronic bulletin board was not maintained by the employer, but was accessible to all Continental pilots and crew members.[7]<\/a>\u00a0 Employees were also required to access the Forum to learn their flight schedules and assignments.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

The court analyzed the case under a traditional hostile work environment framework, concluding that the electronic bulletin board was no different from other social settings in which co-workers might interact.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Although the electronic bulletin board was not part of the physical workplace, the employer had a duty to correct harassment occurring there if the employer obtained a sufficient benefit from the electronic forum as to make it part of the workplace.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 The court made clear that an employer does not have an affirmative duty to monitor the forum, but that liability may still attach if the company had direct or constructive knowledge of the content posted there.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 The court limited consideration of social media harassment to situations where the employer derived a benefit from the forum and it could therefore be considered part of the employee\u2019s work environment.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Workplace harassment is not longer limited to the traditional four walls of the workplace. \u00a0As technology and the boundaries of the workplace have changed, courts have struggled to modernize their framework for assessing hostile work environment claims under Title VII. \u00a0These problems will only become exacerbated as society continues to embrace social media throughout our daily lives and employers continue to integrate social media into their business practices.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> See<\/em> Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64-67 (1986) (finding that workplace harassment based on individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Jeremy Gelms, High-Tech Harassment: Employer Liability Under Title VII for Employee Social Media Misconduct, 87 Wash. L. Rev. 249 (2012).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em>, Kendall K. Hayden, The Proof Is in the Posting: How Social Media Is Changing the Law, 73 Tex. B.J. 188 (2010).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Jeremy Gelms, High-Tech Harassment: Employer Liability Under Title VII for Employee Social Media Misconduct, 87 Wash. L. Rev. 249 (2012).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 751 A.2d 538 (N.J. 2000).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 544.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 549.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Blakey, 751 A.2d at 551.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Micala MacRae, Associate Notes and Comments Editor The Supreme Court has recognized workplace harassment as an actionable claim against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[1]\u00a0 The rise in social media has created a new medium through which workplace harassment occurs. \u00a0Courts are just beginning to confront the issue […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4287,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[51366],"tags":[795,1071],"class_list":["post-2561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-post","tag-blog","tag-social-media"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paMHOZ-Fj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4287"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/jolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}