New York City Considering Ban on Social Media Background Checks

By Michael Klazema on 9/30/2013
After successfully completing three rounds of interviews, New Yorker Sarah De Stefano faced a dilemma. Her prospective employer asked her to add their background check investigator as a friend on Facebook, but De Stefano wasn't sure she wanted to share private posts and photos meant only for her family and friends with a total stranger. De Stefano elected not to add the investigator as a friend, and ultimately she did not get the job.

"I honestly have nothing to hide", said De Stefano. “I just didn't feel comfortable with it."

De Stefano's feelings are shared by many job seekers across the country. In the past two years, laws preventing employers from requiring that job candidates provide access to non-public information on social media sites have been passed by 14 states. Over 20 other states, including New York state, are considering similar measures.

New York City officials don't seem content to wait for the state to act on this issue. This month, the City Council discussed a plan introduced by Councilwoman Annabel Palma. The proposed plan would prevent employers from even asking job applicants and current employees to accept background check investigators as friends. Employers would also be prevented from asking workers to provide passwords, change privacy settings, or do anything that would enable the employer or their representative to view information not intended for the general public. Employers who violate these rules could be fined by the city and sued by the affected individuals.

The reasoning behind these types of social media privacy laws is that individuals often post comments about their health, religious beliefs, and other personal matters when interacting with their friends and family on social media. If an employer were to access this information, they could learn things that they are not legally permitted to ask about during a job interview and potentially use this information to make an unfair hiring decision.

An employer can really get a significant amount of information they need to make a wise hiring decision through a normal criminal background check like the US OneSEARCH from This national background check tool compares an individual's name and date of birth against a collection of over 450 million public criminal records taken from state and local databases throughout the country.

With any background check process, employers are still responsible for using the information contained in the background check report in a fair manner. For example, employers are not expected to rely solely on arrest data, because arrests are not proof of guilt. Also, employers must consider the nature of the crime, the time passed since the conviction, and whether it has any bearing on the specific job responsibilities at hand.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.