Survey Says: Being Facebook Friends With The Boss Can Be A Challenge

Republishing an interesting article on social media issues from The Huffington Post | By Rieva Lesonsky

Should bosses and employees be friends on Facebook? With rules about personal and professional behavior blurring, it's a bit surprising that only 21 percent of respondents in a recent Russell Herder survey said they are Facebook friends with their work supervisors, compared to 74 percent who aren’t.

Less surprising, however, is that younger workers aged 18-34 are more likely (26 percent) to be Facebook friends with the boss, compared to just 10 percent of those 35 or older. And while 44 percent of Facebook users age 55 and up think it's inappropriate to friend the boss, only 28 percent of those 18-34 agree.

Who started the relationship? Forty-six percent of those who are Facebook friends with their bosses initiated the friendship, while 38 percent say their bosses did. And here's where it gets awkward: 29 percent felt "pressured" to accept the boss's invitation.

Why it matters to your business: According to the survey, men are more likely than women to consider the Facebook relationship a "professional" as opposed to personal one. And what about legal issues? Could Facebook friendships between your employees expose you to sexual harassment charges? If you're at all worried about this, consider easing the awkwardness by creating a company Facebook page. That way, your employees can connect without feeling personally pressured.

Respect & Professionalism

Last night, I completed training for a Pacific Northwest client with approximately 200 employees. This endeavor included 12 sessions of Respect and Professionalism training (including 4 in Spanish with the help of an interpreter) and 5 sessions of manager training on Maintaining a Workplace Free of Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation as well as Performance Management Training.

In conjunction with these training sessions, I am assisting the client in revising the Company handbook and policies. It was a pleasure for me to get to work so closely with this client while they tackle some of the big issues facing their workforce.

Got A Harassment Complaint? Respond Promptly!

The Case: In EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services (2010), a male employee, Rudolph Lamas, allegedly suffered hostile work environment sexual harassment at the hands of a female co-worker, Sylvia Munoz. His employer, PAS, supplies wheelchair assistance to disabled passengers at Las Vegas’s McCarran International Airport. Lamas was a well-respected employee who was promoted to a position of importance involving retention of an important client contract. Starting in the fall of 2002, shortly after Lamas’s wife passed away, Munoz, who was married, made a series of rejected sexual overtures toward Lamas. Munoz’s efforts included several explicit notes to Lamas, including one note where Munoz said,”Seriously, I do want you sexually and romantically,” giving Lamas suggestive pictures of herself, repeatedly approaching Lamas and asking him out or soliciting him for sex, including in front of other co-workers and airline passengers, and enlisting Lamas’s co-workers to pressure Lamas into going out with Munoz. Munoz’s behavior continued from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003.

PAS had a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and encouraging employees to report any violations of the policy to a supervisor so that PAS could investigate complaints. Lamas, bothered by Munoz’s repeated advances, reported her overtures to PAS’s Assistant General Manager, who told Lamas he should tell Munoz that the advances were not welcome, and that Lamas should let him know if the behavior continued so he could take care of it. Lamas also complained to his immediate supervisor, who promised to talk to Munoz, but did not. Finally, Lamas complained to PAS’s General Manager (“GM”), who acknowledged that Munoz’s behavior violated PAS’s policy, but told Lamas that he did not want to get involved in “personal matters.” PAS’s GM did eventually talk to Munoz, telling her that if her advances continued he “would have to take action.”

Despite Lamas’s repeated complaints, Munoz’s behavior continued and even worsened. Lamas consulted with a psychologist. He also raised his complaints anew with four different PAS managers, including a manager who told Lamas that the advances were just a joke and he should feel flattered. During this period, Lamas’s job performance declined and he was eventually fired. Lamas attributed his declining performance to the stress caused by more than half a year of harassment.

On these facts, the Ninth Circuit held that Lamas had more than met his burden to overcome summary judgment. Specifically, Lamas had presented sufficient evidence that he was subjected to conduct of a sexual nature, that he repeatedly rejected Munoz’s advances and communicated his displeasure with those advances to Munoz and his managers, and that Munoz’s conduct had contributed (or caused) the performance decline resulting in his termination. Lamas also presented evidence sufficient to show that PAS failed to take effective action to stop the harassment where, despite repeated reports of bad behavior, Munoz’s conduct continued and worsened.

The Lesson: Nearly all employers, just like PAS, have adopted “anti-harassment” policies requiring employees to report incidents of sexual harassment to specific individuals so that any alleged harassment can be promptly investigated and corrected. The lesson of PAS is that simply having a policy is not enough to avoid liability for hostile work environment harassment. The policy must also be followed in every instance. Complaints of harassment should be processed in accordance with your policy including prompt investigation and effective punishment for any instances of harassment that are found to have occurred. A slap on the wrist may be enough for minor violations, but continued violations or more egregious conduct likely call for something more severe. The ultimate test is whether the corrective action could reasonably be expected to stop the inappropriate conduct and deter such conduct in the future.

In addition, employers should train their managers and supervisors on their procedures for harassment reporting because the potential for liability starts once a management-level employee learns of the bad behavior. Managers should understand the potential risks to the company and to their own reputations and financial well-being is they do not pass complaints up the chain. They should also understand that every complaint is important, no matter how minor it may seem.

Please Note: This Blog is made available by the lawyer publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this Blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Law Office of Elizabeth Van Moppes. The Law Office of Elizabeth Van Moppes is not in control of the linked sites and is not responsible for the contents of any linked site. This Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. Elizabeth Van Moppes is licensed to practice law in the State of Washington only.