Someone complained about my employee's personal Facebook behavior.

January 24, 2019 9:05 AM

Someone complained about my employee's personal Facebook behavior. How can I (politely) tell him no one cares?

I supervise Jamie, an employee (local government) with whom I have no issues. Today I received a call from an individual that demanded Jamie be disciplined (in his words “written up”) for Jamie’s off-duty conduct – specifically, they were involved in a Facebook argument, unrelated to Jamie’s job, in which Jamie continued to contact the individual via Facebook long after being asked to stop.

Jamie’s off duty-conduct is unrelated to their performance as an employee. The fb argument is irrelevant, as my thinking is the only way it would slightly matter is if Jamie had said something like “You’re a jerk and the entire staff of agrees.” Which Jamie did not. I’m already irritated that this individual decided to tell on someone because he couldn’t disengage like an adult and instead decided to threaten someone’s livelihood.

But I have to call this individual back this afternoon. I already know he is going to escalate this when I don’t agree to fire Jamie immediately, that’s unavoidable. I know I cannot appeal to his common sense. What I need is a statement, other than "we do not disclose employee disciplinary action" to let him know that we’re staying out of our employees' private lives, without tempting an argument from either of us about free speech.

posted by anonymous to Law & Government (42 answers total)

Is this individual like "random member of the public" or like "employee in a different department at the agency" or something else? I think knowing that changes the response.
posted by brainmouse at 9:07 AM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

It might be worth appealing to policies or lack thereof regarding employees' behavior on off hours or on social networks. "Our company policy only covers what employees do on social networks on company time..."
posted by jessamyn at 9:10 AM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]

"Hi, I saw your complaint about Jaime, that does sound upsetting. We're looking into it."

I think your priority is to make the person feel heard and then to leave you alone. If you try and downplay their concern, while you're on the job, you've already seen they're willing to escalate issues unnecessarily... no need to put your neck on the line too. Just pay them a bit of lip service while committing to nothing.
posted by matrixclown at 9:11 AM on January 24, 2019 [54 favorites]

Thanks for reaching out. We’ve received your complaint and will handle appropriately after we complete our normal review processes.
posted by suncages at 9:19 AM on January 24, 2019 [59 favorites]

"I can appreciate your concerns, but as none of the things you reference occurred while Jamie was on the job or representing our company, there is not much I can do. Perhaps you should block him on Facebook or launch a complaint with Facebook?"
posted by terrapin at 9:22 AM on January 24, 2019 [5 favorites]

“Information Gladly Given, But Safety Requires Avoiding Unnecessary Conversation”
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 9:23 AM on January 24, 2019 [4 favorites]

I don't know how employment law operates where you are, but here in the UK any employment related info is confidential to the employee/employer and should not be discussed with others at all. Not to say this never happens, but this would be how good employers would be expected to act. You may take action or not but you wouldn't give anyone else that information, even if they were the complainant.

Could you take details of the complaint, make generic sympathy noises, appeal to strict confidentiality rules and suggest that the complainant go to the police if he feels that is needed, and then simply ask Jamie to remove any link to his employer from his FB page so this doesn't happen again? Unless it is egregiously poor behaviour or harassment bringing your company into disrepute then petty arguments do not need to involve employers.
posted by RandomInconsistencies at 9:24 AM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

I don't know that you want him to think you don't care. I think you should make sure to thank them for bringing it to your attention, at the beginning and again at the end of the conversation, and give lots of space for them to vent and be heard, and close with a promise to look into the incident and take appropriate action.

I like matrixclown's phrasing and would use it.

If your employee's files are not public records (I'm not a FOIA attorney, this is not legal advice), then you can treat any follow-ups that this person might make with a "I looked into this and took appropriate action, and I cannot say anything more than that."
posted by gauche at 9:24 AM on January 24, 2019 [5 favorites]

Is this person a resident of your town? That would inform how delicately you will need to proceed, here. In any case, I think it would be hard to go wrong with matrixclown's script. Make them feel heard, give zero information about what action might or might not be taken beyond, "We are looking into it," and tell them that it is town policy not to comment on disciplinary matters. Then go ahead and just give Jaimie an off-the-record heads-up that this person called, while reassuring them that in your view the caller is a crank and that in any case you do not consider this something that's relevant to their job. They should know about it for safety reasons.

Also, while you're totally right that this is not relevant to Jamie's work at all, following people around on social media after you've been asked to leave them alone is bad personal behavior. Hearing that someone called up their work to complain about it might get them to stop doing that, which would be nice.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:26 AM on January 24, 2019 [35 favorites]

Is it insignificant though?
If Jamie is a government employee and is saying racist/sexist/etc. Things on the internet it may in fact matter.
Every day I see stories about cops and teachers who are fired for their social media posting. Either their superiors are worried about their organizational reputation or there was a policy in place. Do you have a policy?

Maybe Jamie was posting during work time or on a work laptop or phone but at home.
posted by k8t at 9:27 AM on January 24, 2019 [11 favorites]

Given the times we live in, it might be worth checking to make sure your organisation or others like it haven't had to fire someone for online white supremacist activity or something like that recently, in case the person you're calling is planning to demand some sort of parallel resolution.
posted by XMLicious at 9:28 AM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]

(Note that the Asker specifies that the context here is local government by the way, not private sector.)
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:30 AM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]

The law here is complicated, both about what you should and should not consider, and probably also about what you can and cannot share with outsiders. Talk to your HR counsel. There may be freedom of speech issues (as a public employer), harassment issues (as k8t points out), relevant policies or ordinances, and more. I'd listen and try to draw out the story, take good notes, and then tell them that you'll be handling this according to your internal policies.
posted by slidell at 9:31 AM on January 24, 2019 [5 favorites]

Your city attorney and HR department are the appropriate sources for how you should handle this. Response here are immaterial.
posted by humboldt32 at 9:33 AM on January 24, 2019 [59 favorites]

This is a question for an attorney familiar with your workplace and located in your jurisdiction. Your obligations and Jamie's rights must absolutely be understood before you do anything.

Additionally, the exact nature of the conversation would be helpful. That your employee was engaging in what appears to be harassment may not look good for you if you sweep it under the rug while being dismissive about it to the complainant, if and when that becomes public record. Government emails can often be had via FOIA requests in the US.

This is especially true if Jamie is a white guy and the person he was repeatedly contacting was not in as privileged a position.
posted by bilabial at 9:34 AM on January 24, 2019 [19 favorites]

humboldt32 has an excellent point, and if I could I would revise my answer to say that you should definitely run this by the relevant person in your town before you return the complainer's call.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:35 AM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

Just lie.

"Sir, we've had a hard conversation with Jamie about boundaries."

but also

"Jamie, some jackhole is calling me to complain that you were a jerk on Facebook. I don't care about your personal social media usage until it comes into work, but it just did and that sucks for me. Can you just block this person, don't respond again, and don't make this a work problem for me, okay?"

But I'd absolutely NOT involve anyone above you in this. It's not worth the hassle, unless you really do want there to be consequences for Jamie.
posted by uberchet at 9:50 AM on January 24, 2019 [18 favorites]

in which Jamie continued to contact the individual via Facebook long after being asked to stop.
Given the current political environment, this would be a red flag for me, especially if Jamie is a white man, doubly so since he works in local government.

The fb argument is irrelevant,
Unfortunately not, especially right now. A difference of opinion about, say, Marvel vs DC is a rather different beast than whether specific segments of the population deserve to be treated like human beings or not. I'd definitely want to know which type of argument was being had before I dismissed the complainant's concerns.

What people do in their off hours isn't your business, no. But if they're harassing and/or threatening people? They deserve to face the consequences of that. And that's not getting into the PR fallout. Talk to HR and/or a lawyer.
posted by Tamanna at 9:52 AM on January 24, 2019 [18 favorites]

Jamie continued to contact the individual via Facebook long after being asked to stop

Depending on the laws in your state, this could very reasonably be considered stalking and/or harassment, especially if Jamie's responses were threatening or hateful or any way. Definitely run this situation past your legal advisor(s) first.
posted by nicebookrack at 9:52 AM on January 24, 2019 [21 favorites]

Keep in mind also that the measure used to determine whether this was threatening or harassment may not be what Jamie intended. The measure may be what a reasonable person would consider.

So if Jamie jokingly referred to this person's gender, size, appearance, race, nationality, religion, or some other attribute, whether a protected attribute or not, Jamie may be putting your office at risk if people feel that he is using his position in government to provide cover for his behavior.

And you saying that you don't want him to face consequences for this may give the appearance of you being complicit in him continuing what may be abusive behavior.

Other things that will matter are whether he had/has a relationship with the complainant or the person whom he repeatedly contacted. If there was/is a relationship, the nature of that relationship will also matter.

Again, before you do anything, please talk to the lawyer that represents your workplace to make sure that you act in accordance with the law.
posted by bilabial at 10:05 AM on January 24, 2019 [9 favorites]

If you handle this wrong, there could be legal repercussions for you and your org. Document the conversaton, have a chat with HR and Legal. When the complainant calls back, you should only say that their complaint has been received and is being looked into, and confidentiality forbids any further disclosure, have a nice day, don't call again.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:06 AM on January 24, 2019 [14 favorites]

Hey there, you've probably already had this thought but I just wanted to mention that there is not really any particular reason to believe that the complainer's story is an accurate representation of what actually happened. I don't work in local government, but I work with local government enough to know that the sort of folks who do things like call up and demand that town employees be written up for their off-duty social media behavior often have at best a passing acquaintance with objective reality. I mean it certainly could have gone down just as they say, not all people who call towns to complain are cranks, but it's a pretty routine occurrence as I'm sure you're well aware.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:09 AM on January 24, 2019 [12 favorites]

And I would LOVE to hand this off to HR, except amazingly this kind of issue (facebook) has never come up before and no one is around to address it and it has been lobbed back to me.


Respectfully, this isn't how organizations with HR departments work. If I were you, I'd be making a meeting time with your city attorney and city manager or equivalent.
posted by humboldt32 at 10:10 AM on January 24, 2019 [6 favorites]

And following on humboldt32's reply, I agree that that doesn't sound like a very competent response from your HR department. Just as I'm sure you know that a lot of cranks call up local governments, I'm sure you also know that the effectiveness of town employees can be a bit, shall we say, spotty in places. If your HR is telling you that this is all new to them (in the Year of our Lord 2019) and that therefore it is not their responsibility to advise you (rather than their doing a bit of research into best practices or consulting someone who can advise them or, like anything besides just abdicating responsibility) it probably does make sense to use whatever options you have to go over or around them. You should not bear sole responsibility for handling this matter.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 10:17 AM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

Well. As a public employee, I'm familiar with former coworkers who lost their jobs over stuff they said or did online. As a kook connoisseur, I'm also familiar with kooks and cranks who look up information about people they've targeted and/or are sparring with online, with the goal of trying to get them fired. Happened to me the very first time I posted on Usenet (boy, does that date me...).

As a former union steward, I rely upon this saying: Your employer always holds a gun to your head. Your mission is to not provide the bullets. That means you keep your online footrint as small as possible under your real name. This is especially critical for public employees, since so much information about us is publicly available. So, if you want to argue online, set up accounts under fake names and a variety of email accounts, and don't link back to your real life.

Even if you don't take this complaint seriously, it could get escalated, at which point you'll have no choice but to take it seriously. Thus, Jamie needs to know that this person contacted you with the goal of getting him fired. He has to be told that his outside activities have had an effect on the workplace, so that he can make a decision as how to behave online in the future. Because even if this is bogus, it might not stop here. He could end up being SWATted, he could be stalked, his family could be targeted next. Jamie then gets to decide if arguing with strangers online is worth it.
posted by Lunaloon at 10:25 AM on January 24, 2019 [13 favorites]

You need to talk to HR before you talk to the person who has complained because, as others have said, there are several potential competing legal obligations you have to take into account.

You also really need to get your head around the fact that, while a public employee has free speech rights depending on jurisdiction, there are absolutely things the employee can say on his off-hours that are of legitimate concern to a government employer and going into a situation like this on an auto-dismissive mode because you haven't had any problems with him and "it's just fb, why can't this person disengage" is a huge tactical error. There are plenty of kooks and cranks who go after people's jobs for no good reason. There are also governments (and other employers, but governments have an even greater interest in maintaining a reputation for lack of bias) that get hugely embarrassed when they ignore complaints about employees who later turn out to be white supremacists or decide to settle disputes with a weapon. I don't know about this specific case as I haven't seen the comments complained-of, but that you only thought it necessary to go into the subject matter in a follow-up comment reflects that you're taking the wrong approach.
posted by praemunire at 10:38 AM on January 24, 2019 [7 favorites]

Your problem here is your HR department. The fact that you're trying to hunt up clues online about their supposed field of professional expertise is simply unacceptable. Tell them that they need to provide you with the professional guidance that they are paid to give, and escalate through their line managers until they do their fucking jobs.
posted by howfar at 10:43 AM on January 24, 2019 [11 favorites]

> No threats, no stalker-ish behavior,

Escalating a facebook (etc.) argument outside of facebook to one of the participants' employers is stalker-ish behavior, maybe heavy on the *ish* because it's so low-effort that it can be done from a web browser and telephone. Likely Jamie has on their FB some reference to where they work, and you're in the phone book. This is a form of personal harrassment. Jamie should be informed, and the caller should be dismissed with prejudice.

This is a move that says, "I'm going to humiliate you at your job and/or attempt to get you fired," because for some reason an argument about fast food is worth doing that kind of thing to someone who really has their head up their ass about the quality of their own opinions. If your organization offers any gain to the caller, it does so at the expense of the employees, and because anyone who is daft enough to make this employer call is going to gloat to Jamie, Jamie will know you did this.

Offer the caller nothing except an admonishment to never call back unless it's related to government business. Then put the word out that Jamie is being harrassed by someone who has escalated beyond social media. That you're a government is good news; people are either subject to a government or they are not, but if they want to boycott you, they generally have to do it by moving away.

Advise your superiors that someone's trying to brew a shitstorm from a social-media disagreement, and that the stakes are so low that they should not indulge this crap for a second.
posted by Sunburnt at 10:46 AM on January 24, 2019 [8 favorites]

Count me in as another vote for "We’ve received your complaint and will handle appropriately according to our internal processes." If they press for details, you say that you cannot disclose anything.

(Also your HR department needs to get much more savvy, quickly. Social media is not new, and neither are crackpots calling to try to get someone fired over something personal and petty.)
posted by desuetude at 11:11 AM on January 24, 2019 [12 favorites]

I'm surprised to see a question like this, and I encourage you to contact the mods at minimum to make it anonymous and I encourage you to contact your own lawyer so you can better understand why it is important to avoid social media for discussion of otherwise strictly confidential information.
posted by Little Dawn at 11:13 AM on January 24, 2019 [10 favorites]

I really must encourage you to discount and ignore any advice here that tries to capitalize on a false sense of satisfaction that a passive aggressive response might generate.

You are a public employee. You simply cannot entertain such options. Ex-public employee here.
posted by humboldt32 at 12:21 PM on January 24, 2019 [15 favorites]

Yes, you do not have to be helpful to every jamoke who calls you up with a bone to pick, but you definitely can't be passive-aggressive and threatening. Hopefully you already know that, but jeez.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 1:06 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]

If your HR dept won’t give you guidance, escalate, preferably to counsel. Don’t engage as a public employee with a member of the public about a sensitive issue until you’re clear on the policy.

For example “we’re staying out of our employees' private lives,” may or may not be appropriate. The law says different re: my employer in my state.

Don’t say anything except to acknowledge receipt and that you will be in touch, until you are clear on the appropriate course of action.

This is an HR/legal issue, and our opinions on what you should say here don’t count. Saying the wrong thing will backfire, and we don’t know the right thing.
posted by kapers at 3:00 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

One thing I've not seen mentioned here is the option of just not calling them back. Based on my experiences with any number of local building departments, this is an option that is routinely exercised even when people are making politely-worded requests regarding legitimate business.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 3:28 PM on January 24, 2019 [7 favorites]

Is there any reason why it would be your job to respond at all? My point is that there are HR, legal and communication people in organisations for a reason. And the three of them should respond, if indeed a response is required. And any members of the public should be directed to them. This isn’t your problem to resolve. Let Jamie go and do what they will and let the member of the public do what they will and let the appropriate people in your organisation deal with any inquiries about this.
posted by koahiatamadl at 3:42 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that, as a public employee, Jamie may be represented by a union, and the union contract may specify procedures for disciplinary investigation and/or action. Key word "may". This is why it's so important to involve your HR and legal departments. If you don't follow procedure, you expose your municipality to the risk of a lawsuit from Jamie, and the last thing you need is to get it from both sides.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:09 PM on January 24, 2019 [2 favorites]

in which Jamie continued to contact the individual via Facebook long after being asked to stop.
Given the current political environment, this would be a red flag for me, especially if Jamie is a white man

harassment is in fact unacceptable without regard to the harasser's demographic.

if the employee's harassment included threats or hate speech, that's an extra thing that's more important, and it requires a serious response. but just plain old harassment of someone of the same race and gender, whatever that is, is itself a red flag.

whether it's advisable to discipline someone for just harassing people on facebook on their own time I don't know. I have seen it done, when it became embarrassing for the employer.

the bad behavior in the case I observed was from a white woman, directed towards another white woman, and consisted of a rhetorical what-if-I-were-to-say escalation in an ongoing argument, which was complained about to the company as if it had been a real and realistic threat, which it very clearly was not. but she still got fired. not because she deserved to be, but because of the perception that it made the company look bad. and while I can't go into detail, it definitely did make the company look bad. also made it look deeply disloyal to its own employees, but nobody cared about that. mostly because the person was not well or widely liked.

you, on the other hand, appear to care far too much about that, which is just as questionable and can impair your decision-making.

in short: it matters a lot if there are verifiable instances of stalking, threats, libel, or bigoted speech from your employee. if there are, you not doing anything about it will absolutely be correctly interpreted as your organization condoning that speech or behavior. you have to completely let go of your personal feelings about interfering outsider busybodies when considering this.

that is very different from suggesting that the important thing is what race and gender identity "Jamie" holds, and you will do well not to confuse the two issues.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:57 PM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]

Lots of different advice for you here.

One question I would try to answer before anything else is how this person knew who Jamie worked for. If they tracked him through his web presence that’s one thing, I’m guessing you can keep things simple. If Jamie mentioned it as part of the argument, or was sending email from a work account you should probably at least talk to HR.

Assuming it’s the former I would go with "We appreciate you contacting us. We are investigating and will take appropriate action. H.R. tells me that’s all I am legally allowed to say."
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:45 PM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]

I can understand that you may not know what the proper response/procedure is, but I don't understand that you don't know there exists a proper procedure. Find out what that is, and do that. And if "HR has never handled this before, so they don't know what to do", there is already a procedure for them to figure out what to do. Unless you're part of that process, this is not yours to solve.
posted by Pig Tail Orchestra at 6:07 AM on January 25, 2019 [2 favorites]

One thing I would do is get screencaps of the actual argument from this person. I wouldn't trust their account of what happened. The thing is, they are trying to get Jamie fired over an argument they had on Facebook, which seems extremely vindictive -- I've had many an argument with people on Facebook and I either said what I had to say to them or, if they weren't worth talking to, blocked them. I would *only* contact someone's employer in the case of seriously unacceptable behaviour: stalking, harassment, threats, abuse, bigotry, or behaviour that otherwise demonstrated they are clearly unfit for the job that they hold. They've claimed Jamie contacted them "long after being asked to stop", but they could have solved that problem by simply blocking him -- my guess is that they were still engaging with him. I'd be very suspicious that they are misrepresenting his behaviour out of malice.

Ask for screencaps. Then you'll know what really happened and can better decide whether Jamie's behaviour is truly an issue or not, and how to proceed. If they go silent after being asked for screencaps, you'll know they can't prove their claims.
posted by orange swan at 6:36 AM on January 25, 2019

This department head, or middle manager, DOES NOT go asking the complainant for screencaps of said argument.

No. No, they do NOT do that.
posted by humboldt32 at 9:12 AM on January 25, 2019 [1 favorite]

I think the advice I've seen in here to double-check with employment lawyers isn't a bad idea. but in the meantime - the person who's made the complaint just wants to be heard, and they're never going to know the details of what it is you say to your employee. So the "We're reviewing the situation and will issue whatever discipline our policy deems necessary" boilerplate something will probably appease them.

They don't need to know that the discipline you're going to give your employee is just a quiet "dude, I get it, but maybe disengage from this yutz, okay?" conversation. Which I also think you should do.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on January 25, 2019