How facebook snooping by prospective employers can come back to bite them on the butt.

[TalkingDog]

http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign

I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.

His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”

What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can't even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings.

/snip

I suggest you try it.

[Ecumenist]

1. TalkingDog, this makes sense.

[pacalo]

2. That makes a good point.

Snoopy employers should beware of Facebook pages containing information that could set them up for anti-discrimination lawsuits.

[SunSeeker]

3. That's why you're not supposed to ask Qs like that in interviews.

And yet, by snooping through someone's facebook page, those (age, sexual orientation, marital status, medical history, politics, religion) are exactly the questions you are asking--and getting answered. I am not a labor law expert, but I can't see how this sort of snooping is legal to begin with. Even if the employee gives you permission to look, you should not have asked in the first place, as this post's excellent Karma lesson teaches.

[slampoet]

4. I had a person in class tell me what former company used software to hack into Facebook

when looking up applicants. I dropped a dime on them the other day.

Using hacking software across state lines is a Federal Crime.

[saras]

5. It actually makes sense to be sure ALL that stuff is on your Facebook page before applying...

"My Facebook page? You understand that has racial, religious, medical, political, and sexual orientation information on it, don't you? Isn't it illegal to use that information in the hiring process? But sure, if you insist."

But if you really want that job you might, as TalkingDog suggests, want to hold back your revelation for the most strategic time.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Cool story, bro. n/t

[sudopod]

13. Look at meeee! I'm stealin memes from 4chan! U MAAAAAAAD BRO!

[CreekDog]

16. are you saying it's a lie?

do you do anything here?

[NutmegYankee]

24. It is a fictional story.

Read the Disclaimer at the bottom.

[CreekDog]

26. yes, but does the hypothetical show the problem with asking for FB passwords?

or access to FB profiles?

[surrealAmerican]

7. Very good point.

k & r

[jeff47]

10. The problem is you have to prove it wasn't the reason he or she wasn't hired. (nt)

[jeff47]

12. When those not hired sue, claiming the non-hiring was due to illegal discrimination. (nt)

[CreekDog]

17. the potential employer just said why they didn't want to hire him

because of the expected parental leave.

pretty clear actually.

[CreekDog]

20. do you even support anti discrimination laws?

doesn't sound like it.

[obamanut2012]

25. No, the interviewer did, by accessing private information

Most people's profiles have personal and private info, unless it's a company or other organization.

[markpkessinger]

22. In a civil matter such as this...

... the standard for determining a case is what can be established by the "preponderance of evidence" presented. What that means, in reality, is that the burden falls on both parties to make their case.

[jeff47]

23. As a sibling post mentioned, this isn't a criminal trial.

As a practical mater, both parties have a burden of proof in a civil trial.

The non-hired person gets to say "they hacked my Facebook and then didn't hire me!". That makes the company look like a big evil monster. So now the jury is all set to punish the evil company that is trying to take the food out of this poor man/woman's children's mouths.

The company will claim it didn't discriminate, but that's gonna be very hard for them to prove. The vast majority of the time, there isn't a clear winner between potential candidates. So it's unlikely that they'll be able to point to the actual hire being better in some measurable way. So it comes down to what the jury thinks was going on in the heads of the hiring manager and HR people. Which means the company is very likely to lose.

[kudzu22]

9. I like it.

If you don't want to know, don't ask.

[jpak]

14. Yawn - this is Canada, where they care about stuff like this

In the Live Free or Die Don't Tread on Me USA?

not so much

yup

[CreekDog]

18. our anti discrimination laws, not as good, but still cover these types of situations