Contact Us
Categories
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Work from Home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Copyright
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Intellectual Property
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Volunteer
- Work for Hire
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Non-exempt employees
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Northwestern
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Freedom of Speech
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- KYSHRM 2013
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Municipal Liability
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Federal Department of Labor
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Communications Decency Act
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Contracts
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Digital “Off-the-Record” Conversations?
Employers and business professionals are no strangers to “off-the-record” conversations and closed-door meetings. In today’s world, though, many long for a way to converse online without a permanent record of the conversation existing somewhere out there in Internet-land. New apps have responded to this need; think Snapchat (the popular app that allows users to set a predetermined time for how long recipients can view their photos) for text messaging. TigerText, Wickr, and Confide are just some of the self-destructing text apps that have recently emerged. Businesses, however, should proceed with caution when using these – they could not only present an air of impropriety but also be a legal hazard.
The apps work by allowing a sender to set a time for the message to “live” after the receiver opens it. TigerText, for example, allows a message to live for a minimum of sixty seconds up to thirty days. Both the sender and receiver must have the app for it to be functional, but the sender controls how long the message lives. TigerText has its own server that completely circumvents traditional phone servers. So, once the message is deleted, it no longer exists on the sender’s phone, receiver’s phone, or on a server.
Using these apps in the business world presents a wide range of possibilities: management could really discuss their feelings about a potential candidate, coworkers could lament about their boss, and preliminary document drafts could be shared without fear of a paper trail.
But are these apps really the answer to employers’ wishes? Not exactly. Again, by example of Tiger Text, the privacy policies of these apps demonstrate that they are not fool-proof:
TigerText cooperates with government and law enforcement officials to enforce and comply with the law. We may therefore disclose Personal Information, Usage Data, Message Data, and any other information about you, if we deem that it is reasonably necessary to: (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process (such as a subpoena or court order) or enforceable governmental request; (b) enforce the Terms or the Services, including investigation of potential violations thereof; (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues; or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of TigerText, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.
By relying on this technology, users are putting their faith in third parties to keep the information secure. Internet security breaches happen – Snapchat experienced one in January that affected 4.6 million users. And while these apps promise to delete the message data (i.e., content of texts), they do not promise to delete the usage data. According to Tiger Text, “…each time you use the Services, we automatically collect information regarding the type of web browser you use, your operating system, your Internet Service Provider, your IP address, the pages you view, the time and duration of your visits to the Site, crash logs and other information relating to your use of the Services.” In other words, users may be able to shield the conversation, but they cannot deny that the conversation took place.
If you are an employer, you should consider addressing whether or not your employees may use these apps to discuss work-related matter. By using self-destructing apps, there is an implicit notion that the users have something to hide – such a perception can be detrimental to a business. There are also legal risks. Some employment-related laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII, invoke documentation requirements when personnel action is taken. These records must be retained for a certain period of time. When a conversation occurs via text related to a personnel decision, and subsequently disappears, it may mean employers are running afoul of regulations. In the event litigation or investigations are initiated, the use of self-destructing messaging could be considered an obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence. Well-maintained files and records are always an important business practice and these outlets do not allow for such.
Technology is constantly changing the way we do business. Self-destructing messages may sound fictional (Mission Impossible, anyone?), but they are real and quickly finding their way into the workplace. Make it your mission to ensure there are policies and procedures in place that dictate how employees should use them.
Preston Clark Worley is an associate with McBrayer law. Mr. Worley concentrates his practice in employment law, land development, telecommunications, real estate and affordable housing. He is located in the firm’s Lexington office and can be reached at pworley@mcbrayerfirm.com or at (859) 231-8780, ext. 1201.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.