Candy Matos

English Composition 1101

Gaydosh-Bruce
December 2nd, 2014
Are Employers the New Big Brother?
Today, more and more employees are experiencing an invasion of their privacy on social
media by companies and employers. During interviews, there are some things employers cannot
ask, such as, marital status, religion, children, or even sexual orientation. However, through
screening prospective employees social media, employers can potentially discover controversial
information that can affect an employees chances of getting hired, or in some cases, even fired.
Therefore, by possibly discovering controversial information that cannot be asked in an
interview, companies should not be allowed to screen prospective employees social media.
A recent survey reveals that as many as 70% of US recruiters have allegedly rejected a
candidate following social media checks (Berlatsky, Noah). Reasons as to why recruiters dont
hire candidates include: postings of inappropriate photos, sharing information of drug and/or
alcohol use, exhibition of poor communication skills, candidates bad-mouthing previous
employers, making discriminatory remarks towards gender, race, or religion, and candidates
lying about their qualifications (TM Staff).
Another survey shows that 91% of employers use Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to
screen job applicants (Bennett, Shea). Reasoning behind screening prospective employees
social media include: wanting to see if the candidate presents themselves professionally, if the

candidate is a good fit for the company culture, wanting to know more about the candidates
qualifications, seeing if the candidate is well-rounded, and to look for reasons not to hire the
candidate (TM Staff).
What employers can discover while conducting social media screenings can be beneficial
to both them and the candidate, but for some employers, like the University of Kentucky, it can
backfire. In 2011, the University of Kentucky turned down what seemed like the perfect
candidate for a job. The candidate was denied the job after the University of Kentucky saw the
candidates social media where conflicting views with the job position applied for were made
(Berlatsky, Noah). If a job offer has been made and accepted, and then promptly withdrawn
after a social media screening, there is a chance that the candidate can claim compensation and
damages even if there isnt enough evidence to claim unjust dismissal (Berlatsky, Noah).
Because of the unjust dismissal, the University of Kentucky was forced to make an out-ofcourt settlement of $125,000.
Although some laws restrict how potential employees and candidates are affected by
social media screenings, some arent as lucky. In 38 states, there are no laws guaranteeing the
security of a transgender employees job simply for being transgender (Stabler, Meghan),
something that an employer can potentially discover while screening an employees social media.
Employers discovering a controversial information such as gender transitioning can lead to
demotions and even terminations. Getting demoted or terminated can affect an employee because
they will then not have the necessary income to have access to surgeries, medication, or
treatment (Stabler, Meghan). For transgender employees, it can also affect the way they
reenter the world in their new legal identity and gender.

In one hand, social media screenings can take a bad turn for some candidates, but in the
other hand, it can lead to the hiring process. In a survey, 68% of recruiters allegedly hired a
candidate because of the information presented on a candidates social media. Some of the
reasons the candidates were hired included, giving a positive impression of their organization
skills and personality, demonstrating their qualifications on their profile, showing their
communication skills, having good references posted by others, and pictures of the candidate
receiving awards and accolades. The 68% of the recruiters that hired a candidate after a social
media screening said they did so because they are wanting to a get a more personal view of a
candidate rather than a resume-like view. Hiring employees after social media screenings can be
beneficial to a company because it allows them to get some background knowledge before
making a commitment (Weber, John). For example, you wouldnt want to hire a candidate with
a drinking problem to drive a truck (Weber, John).
Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doesnt have specified rule
regarding social media. Even if there were policies, employers would find a less structured way
to screen employees and candidates social media. Screening candidates social media could
lead to discrimination because it can screen out the strong candidates that qualify for the job but
have done or said things on social media that the company and employers doesnt like (Weber,
John). Because of the gray area involved in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
social media screenings, it would be difficult for an employee or candidate to prove that they
were demoted, fired, or denied a job based on discriminatory information that could have been
revealed on their social media.
Whether or not it is favored, some employers do depend on screening their candidates
and current employees social media when it comes to promotions and hiring decisions. Although

social media screenings can positively affect employers by helping employers seek out strong
candidates that qualify for the position, it also helps candidates by allowing candidates who
positively represent themselves on social media get hired. Positive social media screenings can
also aid current employees earn promotions.
Even though social media screenings can be a positive research and recruiting tool, it
usually does more harm than good. Social media is for socializing and communicating with
friends and family, it shouldnt be used for networking, and companies shouldnt be allowed to
use social media for a hiring process, or to monitor their employees outside of the workplace.
Employers using social media screenings can make candidates and current employees
susceptible to discrimination. Social media can reveal a plethora of information that employers
are not allowed to ask, nor disclose during an interview or the hiring process. The information
revealed on employees and candidates social media screenings can affect them in a negative
way and hinder their chances of getting hired and fired, therefore, there should be laws
restricting social media screenings so that employees and candidates do not have their privacy,
or chances of an income affected.

Bennett, Shea. "91% Of Employers Use Twitter, Facebook And LinkedIn To Screen Job
Applicants [INFOGRAPHIC]." - AllTwitter. MediaBistro, 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.
"Employers Should Be Cautious About Using Social Media Background Checks."Netiquette and
Online Ethics. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt.
from "Social Media Background Checks a Minefield for Recruiters." PersonnelToday.com.
2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
Stabler, Meghan. "Transgender People Need Federal Protections in the Workplace."Transgender
People. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from "Prepared
Written Statement of Meghan Stabler to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pensions, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives: An Examination
of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the
Workplace."http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Meghan-StablerTestimony-Senate-ENDA-Hearing-11.05.09.pdf. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28
Oct. 2014.
TM Staff. "37% of Employers Check Facebook Before Making Hiring Decision."Trademark
Productions. TM Productions, 18 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.
Weber, John. "Should Companies Monitor Their Employees' Social Media?" The Wall Street
Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.