Anyone who works frequently with employment counsel has heard the words “it depends” – it (the answer to a question) depends on the specific facts and circumstances at issue, which should be analyzed and discussed before a course of action is determined.
Two recent cases illustrate this point. Both cases arose out of similar, but not identical, situations.
On January 5, we posted a blog entry about the case of PhoneDog v. Kravitz, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In short, during his employment with PhoneDog, Kravitz used a PhoneDog twitter account (@PhoneDog_Noah) to disseminate information on behalf of the company and to promote its services. After Kravitz left PhoneDog, he continued tweeting under the PhoneDog twitter handle on behalf of his new employer. Although he later changed the handle to omit reference to PhoneDog (@noahkravitz), he kept the 17,000 twitter account followers.
My colleagues Jennifer Rubin and Michael Arnold recently authored a very interesting Alert, describing a recent New York appellate court decision outlining the evidentiary burden an employer must satisfy to win a New York City Human Rights Law claim at summary judgment. As a result of this decision, it is likely that more New York employees will have the opportunity to proceed to trial. Click here to read more.
