Allen Matkins
ProfessionalsIndustries & ServicesNews & InsightsCareers

  • Professionals
  • Industries & Services
  • News & Insights
  • Careers
  • Offices
  • About
Manage Subscriptions

News & Insights

Blog Post

Reporting Sexual Harassment on Facebook

Social Media and Employment Law Blog for California Employers

6.26.14

With so many employees now posting on social media—both at work and after work—employers must consider what to do if an employee complains online about workplace harassment. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some guidance by declining to review a Tenth Circuit decision that touched on this issue.

Related Professionals

Alexander Nestor

In Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, Inc.,[1] the employee, a nuclear-medicine technician at a hospital, made a series of public Facebook posts during one of her shifts. Some of these posts claimed that her supervisor had intentionally overpaid employees that he favored, and that he “needs to keep his creapy (sic) hands to himself . . . just an all-around d-bag!!” The supervisor saw the posts and reported the employee’s comments to HR. The employer started an investigation into the matter, but soon afterwards terminated the employee for lying on three occasions about making the posts and also interfering with the investigation by sending texts to other employees.

In her lawsuit, the employee claimed that she was sexually harassed and retaliated against for reporting such harassment on Facebook (which she alleged was protected speech). In affirming summary judgment for the employer on both claims, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Facebook post did not constitute a legally protected harassment complaint because it did not comply with the employer’s harassment reporting policies and did not provide any notice to the employer. In any event, there no pretext existed as the employee was not fired for posting on Facebook, but for dishonesty and disrupting the employer’s investigation.

Practical Pointers:

  • Employers should be pleased that the Tenth Circuit enforced the hospital’s policies for reporting harassment and found that the Facebook post did not meet the reporting requirements. At the same time, once employers learn about any complaints of harassment—whether through normal channels or via social media—they must treat them like any other workplace issue and conduct a thorough investigation, as the hospital did in the Debord case. (This case also is a helpful reminder for employers to ensure their policies make clear that employees are obligated to report harassment and explain specifically how to do so.)
  • As we have cautioned before, employers should take into account and follow recently enacted laws in many states that prohibit employers from requesting or requiring employees to provide access to their personal social media accounts.
SUBSCRIBE

News & Insights

Manage Subscriptions

Event

Construction & Development Outlook

5.08.25

Legal Alert

Is Bullock v. Rivian the Nail in the Coffin for California State 1933 Act Claims?

5.07.25

Blog Post

Issuer Retreats From Racial Share Allocation Scheme

5.07.25

Newsletter

Renewable Energy Update

5.07.25

Press, Media, & Articles

Allen Matkins Wins Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, and Accessibility Award from NAIOP SoCal

5.16.25

Newsletter

California Environmental Law & Policy Update

5.16.25

Blog Post

Is This Harvard Magazine Article Incorrect?

5.16.25

Blog Post

Complaint Need Not Allege Fraud, Misrepresentation, Or Deceit To Be "Based Upon" A Corporation’s “Fraud, Misrepresentation or Deceit"

5.15.25

Blog Post

Another Court Conflates Limited Liability Companies And Corporations

5.14.25

Press, Media, & Articles

In the Dirt: What kinds of assets are investors targeting in today’s shifting political and economic climate?

5.14.25

Picture of chess piece on chess board

Press, Media, & Articles

Second Rite Aid Bankruptcy Underscores Importance of Vendor Role

5.14.25

Blog Post

Court: Nevada Allows Controllers To Vote In Their Own Interest

5.13.25

Blog Post

This Texas Case Illustrates Why Delaware Are Choosing Nevada

5.12.25

Newsletter

California Environmental Law & Policy Update

5.09.25

Newsletter

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update

5.09.25

Event

Building for the Future

5.08.25

Event

Construction & Development Outlook

5.08.25

Legal Alert

Is Bullock v. Rivian the Nail in the Coffin for California State 1933 Act Claims?

5.07.25

Blog Post

Issuer Retreats From Racial Share Allocation Scheme

5.07.25

Newsletter

Renewable Energy Update

5.07.25

Press, Media, & Articles

Allen Matkins Wins Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, and Accessibility Award from NAIOP SoCal

5.16.25

Newsletter

California Environmental Law & Policy Update

5.16.25

Blog Post

Is This Harvard Magazine Article Incorrect?

5.16.25

Blog Post

Complaint Need Not Allege Fraud, Misrepresentation, Or Deceit To Be "Based Upon" A Corporation’s “Fraud, Misrepresentation or Deceit"

5.15.25

Blog Post

Another Court Conflates Limited Liability Companies And Corporations

5.14.25

Press, Media, & Articles

In the Dirt: What kinds of assets are investors targeting in today’s shifting political and economic climate?

5.14.25

Picture of chess piece on chess board

Press, Media, & Articles

Second Rite Aid Bankruptcy Underscores Importance of Vendor Role

5.14.25

Blog Post

Court: Nevada Allows Controllers To Vote In Their Own Interest

5.13.25

Blog Post

This Texas Case Illustrates Why Delaware Are Choosing Nevada

5.12.25

Newsletter

California Environmental Law & Policy Update

5.09.25

Newsletter

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update

5.09.25

Event

Building for the Future

5.08.25

Event

Construction & Development Outlook

5.08.25

Legal Alert

Is Bullock v. Rivian the Nail in the Coffin for California State 1933 Act Claims?

5.07.25

Blog Post

Issuer Retreats From Racial Share Allocation Scheme

5.07.25

Newsletter

Renewable Energy Update

5.07.25

View All
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Request Personal Data Information

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram

This publication is made available by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP for educational purposes only to convey general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website you acknowledge there is no attorney client relationship between you and Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP. This publication should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney applied to your circumstances. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Full Disclaimer