New Jersey Restricts Social Media Access

By Michael Klazema on 9/13/2013

On August 28, 2013, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie approved Assembly Bill 2878 that prohibits employers from obtaining user access information to personal social media accounts of employees and applicants. The bill goes into effect on December 1, 2013.

The new law prohibits employers from:

  1. Requiring or requesting a current employee or applicant to provide or disclose any username or password, or in any way provide the employer access to a personal account through an electronic communications device;
  2. Requiring or requesting a current employee or applicant from disclosing whether he or she has a personal social media account; and
  3. Requiring an individual to waive or limit any protections granted under the law as a condition of applying or receiving an offer of employment.

The new law also prohibits employers from retaliating or discriminating against an individual for refusing to disclose a username or password or for refusing to provide access to a personal account. The law protects individuals from alleged violations of the law and for participating in an investigation concerning a violation of the law.

The new law applies only to personal social media accounts. It does not apply to social media accounts related to the business of the employer or used for business-related communications. Nothing in the bill prohibits employers from asking applicants or employees if they have a social media account or from viewing publicly available social media content. Employers may conduct investigations to ensure compliance with the law and to investigate work-related employee misconduct, including potential disclosures of the employer’s proprietary, confidential, or financial information. Employers may view, access, or use information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained in the public domain.

The new law authorizes the New Jersey Department of Labor to pursue civil penalties of up to $1,000 for the first violation and $2,500 for each subsequent violation of the law.

Assembly Bill 2878 is available here:

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • February 18

    Many hiring decisions are based mostly on candidates’ past work experiences. Here’s how a background check can verify employers to make sure those hiring decisions are grounded in fact.

  • February 14 As more states legalize various forms of marijuana, past marijuana convictions are still causing concern while uncertainty over substances such as CBD drives new arrests. 
  • February 12 A new bill in the New York State legislature could add new requirements for school employee background checks. Currently, private schools are not required to follow state mandates regarding background checks.
  • February 07 Some parents in El Paso, Texas have been left wondering about the strength of their city's youth sports procedures after a felon fraudulently took funds for a girls' soccer team.
  • February 06 If there is one way that volunteer organizations could serve their communities better, it’s implementing more thorough volunteer screening policies.
  • February 05 Madison County, Illinois has created a new initiative designed to help individuals overcome barriers to employment. Clients of the initiative will be able to explore criminal record expungement among other options.
  • February 01 An OfficeTeam survey found that the two most common forms of resume dishonesty had to do with past employers: job experience and job duties or responsibilities.
  • January 31 During the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, hundreds of thousands of federal employees have gone without work for more than a month. Some are finding temporary alternatives elsewhere.
  • January 29 A Florida nurse has been arrested for allegedly stealing two types of prescription pain medications from the county jail where she worked. The case highlights the importance of rigorous drug testing procedures for employment situations in which employees have access to prescription drugs.
  • January 24 After the airline failed to adequately disclose to applicants that they would undergo a background check, a court has ruled Delta did not meet its legislative obligations. The settlement highlights the importance of rigorous compliance.