Employee Recruiting and Social Media
Avoid These Filters While Recruiting Employees on Social Media Sites
I recently received a phone call from a corporate client that was preparing to launch a recruiting campaign with a prominent social media site. The client was seeking white-collar professionals with sufficient years of experience to demonstrate competency in their field. Based on the qualifiers selected by the client as the “advertiser,” its banner ad would appear on the home page of site users whose personal information matched the targeted criteria.
Hazard of targeted demographic filters
To try to capture the “target” audience with the requisite years of experience, the client tentatively choose the “between ages 30 and 40″ filter offered as part of the ad application. Fortunately, the individuals responsible for placing the ad were well versed in employment law, and before pulling the trigger, contacted me to discuss that particular filter. 
As we talked about it, we decided that the filter could have the unintended and unnecessary effect of opening a claim for age discrimination if someone over forty applied for, but did not receive, the job. While the age “30 to 40″ filter would not be published to the applicants, I was concerned that it could be discovered in the course of litigation if someone was inclined to sue based on alleged age discrimination. The client eliminated the filter and tailored one based explicitly on the minimum number of years required for the job.
Do not lose sight of legal parameters
As online and social media advertising grow, so too will grow the data-trail of information plaintiff lawyers will try to uncover in the course of litigation. The same questions that you would not ask in an interview should not be asked, or used as filters, in an online recruiting campaign. As you take advantage of these new recruiting opportunities, do not lose sight of the legal parameters in which you conduct them.
Dirk A. Beamer
In this changing economic climate, employers are seeking new and creative ways to hire or classify workers, hoping to avoid some of the mandatory benefits imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA, employers are required to pay minimum wage, overtime, and maintain certain records. Employers are therefore looking to independent contractors, subcontractors, temp agencies, or labeling the workers “independent contractor,” “tenant,” or “subcontractor” or “temporary labor provider” to avoid the label “employee.” Employer classification, contract language, or the manner in which a worker was hired does not hold much weight when determining if a worker is an employee for purposes of the FLSA. As a result, employers need to carefully consider the “economic realities” of the relationship between the employer and the worker to determine if FLSA applies.
Business owners should take note that the FLSA test differs dramatically from tests commonly used in other aspects of their business, such as for tax purposes, and that the “economic realities” test is the only one that applies to the FLSA.
Recent changes to the Michigan Vehicle Code have the potential for impacting many Michigan drivers, this time in a positive way. Public Act 289, which became effective in the closing days of 2010, amends the Michigan Vehicle Code to allow eligible drivers who are ticketed for certain moving violations to avoid the imposition of points if they successfully complete an approved basic driver improvement course. Further, if the requirements of the law are met, the Michigan Secretary of State (SOS) will not report the violation to any insurance carrier, thereby allowing the driver to avoid an almost certain premium increase, surcharge, or worse.