What types of recourse do I have against people who contact my employers about thing I have of Facebook? I made a factual statement about mathematics on Facebook. A group of people took exception to what I said and decided that they would contact my employer because they thought it made me unfit to be a math tutor. If you grant that my statement was in fact factual (I am not interested in discussing the putative factuality of the statement), what kind of recourse do I have against these people if their actions have negative consequences? I am trying to be broad as possible, because I already feel that they have done me wrong, but I realize that they may be fully within their rights to express their discontent about me with my employer. However, it is possible that their actions constitute something that may be covered under certain harassment statutes. I am just wondering if that might be possible. I understand that soaking publicly on the internet does carry risk, but I was checking whether something that I thought Rose to the level of ethical malice Rose to the level of legal malice. Now, it seems like it doesn't.
You Have No Recourse You have no recourse, at least to the extent that the people communicating to your employer point out the particular Facebook posts that were made or accurately summarize or paraphrase them (if the content of the Facebook posts was misrepresented to the employer that would be a different story). A factually truthful statement (e.g., "McGovern made a Facebook post at this link which you ought to look at") is absolutely privileged from legal liability under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (assuming that you are talking about a U.S. case). The only exceptions would be when (1) the information provided is false and the person providing the tip has the appropriately standard of intent1 in providing the false statement (which can be actionable as defamation or intentional interference with contract as the DJ suing Taylor Swifts alleges in the Mueller v. Taylor Swift trial pending right now), or (2) the person providing the tip was someone who owed you a duty of confidentiality (e.g. your lawyer or psychiatrist), but that duty applies only to confidential communications between you and that person in most cases, and hence not to Facebook posts. Also, whether your own statements on Facebook were true, false or neither (e.g. statements of opinion) is irrelevant to the culpability or liability of the people providing the tip to your employer, so long as their description of your posts made to the employer were substantially accurate or to the extent that they were inaccurate were accompanied by a means by which the employer could determine what you actually said without relying on their second hand account. 1 To the extent that you are not a public figure and this is not a matter of public concern, even a negligent misrepresentation about what you actually wrote on Facebook, that is not a statement of opinion and is not accompanied by a reference allowing someone to confirm the accuracy of the statement at the source, could give rise to legal liability on the part of the person giving the tip. The standard of intent is the higher "actual malice" threshold for statements on matters of public concern, statements by media defendants and statements about public figures. But, there is nothing in the question to suggest that the tip given was in any way inaccurate. This Does Not Legally Constitute Harassment This is not harassment in a legal sense, even if it may have been an unkind thing to do on the part of the person doing it done with a specific and malicious desire on the person providing the tip to harm you. This is a natural consequence of you saying something on the Internet, which is forever. If your employer doesn't like true things that you say whether or not they relate to your job, if you are an employee at will you can be fired for it. It isn't absolutely impossible for factually true statements to constitute harassment, in a legal sense, but in those cases, it is the frequency and character of the communications, rather than their content or intended recipient, that make them harassing. For example, if the person providing the tip sent an email about that tip every five minutes for several days to every email address at your employer, causing your employer to find that it was just too disruptive to the employer's business to keep you on the payroll, that might be harassment, but that would have nothing to do with the content of the message provided in that case. Similarly, if someone screamed and yelled their statement over a loudspeaker every time you tried to tutor someone, that might be harassment, again, without regard to the content of what they were saying. In those cases, the "time, place and manner" exception to laws limiting the freedom of speech would apply. Could An Employer Take Employment Action Based On These Posts? There are a couple of states (Wyoming and Colorado, at least) which prohibit employers for taking employment actions against employees for lawful off the job conduct, despite the fact that otherwise, the default rule of law is that an employer can normally treat an employee at will (which the vast majority of employees are) as the employer deems fit. But, even then, liability is limited to the employer and not the person providing the tip. And, even in those states, off duty conduct can sometimes be considered by employers when it reflects directly on your fitness and ability to do your job when you are on the job, which a post about mathematics made by a math tutor very well might. Some high level employees with written contracts, career government employees with civil service protections, and almost all unionized employees can only be fired or disciplined on the job when the higher standard of "for cause" employment action is met, which posting something true on Facebook would not normally be. But, in the "at will" employment world, anything you say can and will be held against you even if it is entirely true. But, again, even if the employer misuses the information that the employer receives, that doesn't mean that someone who provided truthful information to your employer has any legal responsibility whatsoever to you or that the person providing the tip has done anything legally wrong in any way. For the most part, even if every word of your Facebook post was 100% true and accurate, outside the couple of states mentioned, you can be fired for posting it anyway if you are an employee at will. For example, suppose that your employer thinks that the Kumon method of teaching mathematics is a horrible method of instruction, and you post Kumon method exercises or explanations on your Facebook page (assume to avoid going on tangents that you had express permission from the copyright holder to do so). You could still be fired by your employer for posting that on Facebook in the vast majority of states. A Footnote on Internet Age Defamation Jurisdiction The usual rule is that a U.S. Defendant can be sued for defamation or similar torts where a statement is intentionally published to by the person being sued. In the case of a media defendant, or someone suing over a post made on Facebook, that could be any place in the world in many cases. But, while the geographic location of your Facebook post may be unclear, the geographic location of your employer to whom the statement you are concerned about being communicated was made, is not. Any harm done to you was done by communications to a single "legal" person who is legally located at a particular place in a single state, so the law of the state in which your employer is located (Washington State, U.S.A.) would govern, although there would also be an argument to looking to the law of the place where the person making the statement was located when they made the statement (which, it appears, would also be Washington State in your fact pattern). When someone in the U.S. communicates something to someone outside the U.S. that does not have the same level of protections for free speech that the U.S. does, there are federal statutes that provide that a judgment obtained there is not enforceable in the United States.
tldr; the agreement is a mess, one-sided, do not sign. This agreement does little to serve your interests, and a lot to harm them. It is also fairly poorly phrased, I have doubts that someone with legal knowledge wrote it. It states: I agree to not disclose, or discuss with anyone, any matters relating to the investigation You are agreeing not to talk to the investigator. If you do talk to them, you will be in breach of the terms you've agreed to. I'm sure they'll just say "oh, that's not what it means" - but that is not how contracts work, they mean what they say. It also says: which includes but is not limited to: ... All documents created by me or shared with me during the investigation. This applies to documents created during the investigation, not in relation to the investigation, not for use in the investigation, not related to the complaint. And again, you can't share these documents with anyone, including the investigator. It may well be unenforceable, as it gives you nothing in exchange for the rights you are giving up, and the concept of "consideration" is key to the common law of contracts in the USA, and also Canada (stemming from British common law) which means both parties must receive something of value: Here's a wiki article on Consideration in US law and a page on Consideration in Canadian law With all of these flaws and the fact that it may well be unenforceable, it would not be wise to sign it. If it did the following, it might be a more useful agreement: Had time limits, after which the restrictions are lifted Allowed you to acknowledge the case and state that you can't discuss it while it is ongoing Applied only to the workplace, talking to the press and publishing details to the public internet, such as social media - this may already be in your contract of employment (relating to bringing the company into disrepute) if so it isn't really a restriction being applied by this agreement, but a re-iteration of the existing agreement Promised a fair investigation in a timely manner, with a report at the end, and appropriate action is taken if claims are substantiated, and libel has occurred Or, they could offer you money right now for your silence, that would absolutely be consideration, in some jurisdictions, the sum may need to be considered reasonable, but this is not universal. There are also cases where NDAs turn out to be invalid: 11 ways NDAs can be invalidated An actual case where an NDA was found to be too broad
Probably not Now, some US constitutional rights do get interpreted very broadly, and it's possible this might be the case here too. But fundamentally, this situation is not equivalent to the security contractors example you mentioned. The crux is that Facebook already has every right to delete your posts for whatever reason they want. A security contractor does not have any intrinsic right to conduct searches (warrantless or otherwise) on your person, residence or effects. Facebook can choose, at their sole discretion, to delete all your posts, delete none of your posts, or delete some of your posts according to whatever metric they came up with. In this case, the metric is 'did the government flag this as misinformation'. The government isn't censoring you - Facebook is, and Facebook is allowed to do that (they happen in this case to be following the government's advice on what specifically needs censoring, but where they choose to get their advice is also purely their business). A security contractor, by contrast, can't do much of anything to you, except when they have been specifically deputized by the government to do so by some legal process. If this happens, then they are said to be acting 'under color of law', and suddenly First (and Eighth, etc) Amendment restrictions do begin to constrain their actions. Facebook is not getting any kind of state power delegated to them, and thus they aren't considered to be acting 'under color of law'. They aren't doing anything they were not already allowed to do.
What you are describing is not "phishing." It does, however, violate all sorts of laws against copyright and trademark infringement. Furthermore you would have compelling claims against the former employee for various torts &ndash; e.g., breach of trust. The prudent course of action in this scenario would be to contact a lawyer assess the value of your claims and consider suing the former employee for damages and injunctions. If the potential damages (and the ability to collect them) are high enough you might be able to retain a lawyer's services on contingency. At the very least you could send the former employee a "cease and desist" letter. Ideally that should be drafted by a lawyer, but there is plenty of boilerplate and samples to be found online if you lack the money to properly defend your business.
Yes. This is legal. The only possible liability for a truthful and accurate disclosure of fact is a defamation action (in the absence of a privacy clause in the contract) and this is truthful so it would not violate anyone's legal rights. Credit reporting agencies routinely collect such information and court actions to collect unpaid debts are also a matter of public record. Credit reporting agencies in this business also have some additional obligations (such as the obligation to remove an entry after a period of time and an obligation to present rebuttal statements from the person affected). But, you should understand that merely publicly sharing truthful information about a factual matter is not really what a "blacklist" means. Normally, a blacklist includes an implied understanding that certain actions will be taken as a result of placement on the list rather than merely sharing information for what it is worth. An example of a law prohibiting a true blacklist from Colorado is the following: § 8-2-110. Unlawful to publish blacklist No corporation, company, or individual shall blacklist, or publish, or cause to be blacklisted or published any employee, mechanic, or laborer discharged by such corporation, company, or individual, with the intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic, or laborer from engaging in or securing similar or other employment from any other corporation, company, or individual. Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the statute would be constitutional if enforced under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, although one U.S. District court case from 1971 did uphold its validity in the face of a somewhat different kind of challenge. Resident Participation, Inc. v. Love, 322 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Colo. 1971).
My lawyer answers my question, thinking he is giving legal advice to a non-client when he is actually answering a client's question. But if you read the FAQ, posts at law.stachexchange are not legal advice. In fact, questions that are so specific as to risk becoming a request for legal advice are routinely closed. But let's go further: The issue at hand is not the one your lawyer is hired to help you with. He is not your lawyer for that issue. Even if we considered the relationship through law.stackexchange legal representation, the conversation would not be privileged. You are posting in a public forum, and expecting reply in the same way. You are free to waive the privilege of communication with your lawyer, and you are doing that by using this way of communicating with him. At this point, the only thing your lawyer would have done would be voluntarily giving for free some info that he could have billed you for. What exactly would be the issue here? It is exactly what pro bono is for. The only way to breach confidentiality would be if your lawyer were to convey things that you said to him confidentially to the public, but here it would not be relevant if the OPs author were already his customer or not.
There are basically two kinds of conduct that you identify. One is backing away from what you believe were oral promises made by the employer and lawyer regarding payment. Whatever the status of the promises made by the employer, the oral statements made by the lawyer would probably be viewed by a court or ethics board as settlement offers or proposals rather than actual binding agreements, and this is unlikely to be considered an ethical lapse. For purposes of ethics questions and fraud lawsuits, lies about what kind of deal you are willing to make with an adversary don't count as lies. This isn't a terribly logical rule, but is is a well established one. Given that: I was told (by employer), verbally and in text/email messages that I "would be paid when the deals closed." It is going to be very hard for the employer to take back those written statements and text and email messages are usually given the effect of signed writings in a court of law. This is going to be taken as a confession of the employer regarding the probably unwritten agreement of the parties regarding your right to be paid on these deals, so you would be well advised to stick to your guns on this issue. The percentages will be another point that is hard for the employer to fight if there is a course of dealings between the parties in which you receive a consistent percentage or there was a written agreement concerning your commission percentage. Also, even if the lawyer did make a promise and breached it, this would still only be a breach by the employer of a contract made on the employer's behalf by his lawyer. It is not an ethical lapse to breach a contract about future conduct, and a lawyer is not personally responsible for contracts he makes as a disclosed agent of your former employer. The second is making a false statement of fact about whom the lawyer has discussed the matter with. Lawyers do have an ethical duty to be truthful and failing to do so is an ethical lapse. But, this duty is generally interpreted to apply only to statements of fact which are material. If a lawyer lies to you about how old he is, or whether he's ever had an affair, in the context of a pre-litigation negotiation like this one, the ethical officials won't care. If a lawyer lies to you about something material to the transaction (e.g. claiming that the employer has money in the bank to pay a settlement when in fact it is overdrawn on all of its accounts and has no money coming in and the lawyer knows those facts), this is a serious ethical breach. It is hard to see how this information would be material, even though it casts doubt on his credibility. Ethically, he owes any duty of confidentiality to his client and not to you, so it isn't your complaint to make from a confidentiality point of view. Also, unless he discusses confidential advice that he provided to his client when no one else was present to you, he has not waived the attorney-client privilege, contrary to the answer by @IñakiViggers on that issue. Of course, proving that the lawyer said anything in an oral conversation at which no one else was present comes down to a credibility fight between your sworn statement and his if the lawyer testifies inaccurately about the discussion. A sworn statement from you is proof and would meet the "burden of production" to provide proof in support of your case at a trial, but wouldn't necessarily prevail easily at trial since the judge might not be convinced regarding who is accurate in their account of the discussion (I have avoided the word "lying" because there are a variety of reasons that people inaccurately recall discussions). What would be the sensible way to use this information to my advantage while trying to resolve these matters with having to bring suit and go to court? Is there anything that this lawyer should fear, if his unethical behavior was brought to light, either in court or to a bar association? The conduct you describe on the part of the lawyer will provide you with little or no leverage in your negotiations and is likely to not even be considered admissible evidence in court since it may be considered a form of settlement negotiations. Your strongest leverage will be the written statements from the employer. But, depending upon the amount in dispute, it may still make sense to compromise given the time and expense and uncertainty of going to court. Even in the clearest case, you probably only have a 90% chance of winning a contested case, and you wouldn't cross the street if you knew you had a 10% chance of being hit by a car as you crossed, even if you knew that the collision wouldn't be fatal. Unless your state has a wage claims act that covers you, you may have little or not prospect of an attorneys' fee award if you prevail, and representing yourself when the employer has a lawyer will always put you at a disadvantage in a court setting. If the amount in dispute is great (e.g. $50,000+), hiring a lawyer is probably worth it. If the amount in dispute is small (e.g. $5,000) you may want to file a suit in small claims court and only hire a lawyer for a couple hours of pre-hearing coaching.
No. In the United States, lying is not a crime. Unless it is done: under oath (in which case it's called perjury) or to a law enforcement agent conducting an investigation (in which case it's called obstruction). There are also the civil torts of slander (oral) and libel (written) if someone lies and damages the reputation or business interests of a person or company. Collectively, and without distinction, these are called defamation. Lying also has a close cousin &mdash; the civil tort of fraud &mdash; which usually applies to inducement into a transaction or a contract. There are also consumer protection statutes (federal and state) that deal with truth in advertising, truth in lending, lemon laws, etc. But those are primarily civil statutes and the last two are pretty far afield from your question. But none of that applies to the Facebook case you described. So, no.