Does Your Employer Own Your Twitter Account If You Tweet From Work?

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Christopher McKinney

A technology Web site, PhoneDog.com, and one of its former chief editors are duking it out in a legal battle that could impact anyone who tweets from work.

Employee ("Noah Kravitz") is suing PhoneDog over his employment contract.  The employer has counter-sued - and here is the interesting part - claiming that Kravitz personal Twitter handle "PhoneDog-Noah" actually belongs to the company and that Kravitz essentially stole it by not turning it over to the company when he left their employment.

According to this article in SlashGear, the company values the Twitter followers at $2.50 a pop - that's $370,000 per year for the roughly 17,000 followers the account currently has.  According to the article, Kravitz reports that the company did not ask him to create the account; he did it on his own and posted both work-related and personal tweets to it.

Clearly, the employer's claim on the account is murky at best.  But this cautionary tale should give pause to any employee that posts to Twitter regarding issues that are in some way related to his/her work.  Perhaps it would be best not to include a specific reference to your employer in you Twitter handle, at the very least.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Thank You Veterans.

Posted on November 11, 2011 by Christopher McKinney

 

 

 

 

Tags: ,

Wal-Mart 2.0 - New Round of Sex Discrimination Cases Filed

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Christopher McKinney

Four months after the Supreme Court through out their national class-action lawsuit, lawyers representing the many, many, many women who claim that Wal-Mart Stores has discriminated against them filed a new lawsuit last week.  The suit seeks to make its way past the some of the obstacles set in the women's path by the Supreme Court by narrowing their claims to the California stores of the retail chain.

See our previous coverage of the Supreme Court's opinion throwing the women's claims out here.

The original case involved class of approximately 1.5 million women.  The Supreme Court through the case out largely on the argument that such a large group of women could not be shown to have enough in common with their claims to make a class action appropriate.  The class in the new 2.0 lawsuit is limited to approximately 90,000 women.  The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, nor did it preclude class actions consistent with its new guidelines and standards.  

 

One of the Lead lawyers representing the women, Brad Seligman, said

“We’re back. This case and the fight for justice for the women of Wal-Mart are not over. The complaint filed against California Wal-Mart is well within Supreme Court guidelines and we are determined to see that California Wal-Mart women employees who have been waiting up to 11 years for justice finally get their day in court.”

Class counsel expect to file additional cases around the country in the coming months. Information about filing claims can be found at www.walmartclass.com.

Named California Plaintiffs are current Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., employees Betty Dukes, a 17-year employee who works at a cashier/greeter in a Contra Costa County Wal-Mart, and Christine Kwapnoski, a 25-year employee who works as an assistant manager in a Contra Costa County Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart.  Ms. Dukes was the lead plaintiff in the original 1.0 Wal-Mart class action case as well.

 

Related Links:

 

 

Tags: , , ,