Isn't this illegal during the interview process since Facebook reveals practically every protected status?
However, if it's a civil matter (i.e. you sue), then you just need "balance of evidence", not "proof beyond reasonable doubt". You'll try to prove that it was a factor, and they'll try to prove that it wasn't. You might argue that at this stage you're be neck and neck with the other candidates (having passed the previous filters), and it's just going to come down to a "gut feeling" from the hiring manager - so they will almost certainly be swayed by anything which they might dislike on your Facebook page. I've a feeling it would be a horrible case to try to defend against.
There's valid reasons for demanding Facebook login details, but if I were an employer I'd use a trusted third party to look for me, and only report things which have been cleared by a legal team. When the Australian government does security vetting, this is how it works - security personal do all the vetting, keep everything private except the "security clearance passed / failed", and can get thrown in prison if they let the wrong information out.
It should be illegal though- I'm not sure when it ever became acceptable to ask for someone's login credentials.
It's shady, and seems short-sighted, but no one is disclosing information against their will here.
Edit: A bit of searching leads me to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964). I'm not sure if the wording specifically prohibits asking about protected statuses, but any legal decisions about that would probably have their roots in that Act.
The Employment Equity Act is aimed at protecting women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and Aboriginals.
"5. Every employer shall implement employment equity by
(a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer’s employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law" (1)
The Canadian Human Rights Act is aimed at preventing discrimination "practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,marital status, family status, disability orconviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted."
"7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,on a prohibited ground of discrimination." (2)
I'm no lawyer but I would tread lightly on "differentiating" by any of these statuses.
(1) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-3.html#...
My only point is that I don't see why there needs to be a special exemption for social networking data, if the predatory behavior is already illegal b
In hiring laws, it's the applicants that are getting screwed by the lack of these laws, because their choices are to either acquiesce to the hiring manager's demands or lose the job. While it's easy for some people to say "I'd just walk out," a single mother who needs to feed her kids probably wouldn't be so quick to do so.
In the end, it's a matter of the job market. If the market were flush with openings, hiring managers would have to be on their best behavior for fear of losing a promising candidate. Right now though, that's unfortunately not the case, so it's up to regulation to give people some basic rights. In my opinion.
It's like if, in order to perform a credit check on you, they asked for your SSN, mother's maiden name, etc., and then applied for a couple of credit cards on your behalf to see if you get accepted.
There are ways to perform credit checks without committing identity theft. I would think there must be ways to obtain 'social references' without identity theft either.
This article cites the exact same incident that every article I've read cites. Maybe when at least a single new incident is reported since the last time this made headlines we can talk about it being wide spread.
There's a severe power imbalance. If you don't take the job, in most cases there are seven other qualified applications who will take it instead. Odds are that one of them will fork over their login info. And even though few people truly want to disclose it, once it becomes a de-facto standard, people will have little choice. The power imbalance is the crucial problem, and companies shouldn't be allowed to dictate unreasonable terms to employees or potential employees just because that imbalance allows them to obtain consent in most cases.
However, the employer doesn't have to "confirm membership" of any status in order to open themselves up to credible legal action. All they need to do is give the impression that they were given some information about protected status, and their "no hire" decision becomes easily suspect.
It would be hard in a litigation setting for the employer, after viewing someone's Facebook data, to be able to cite and document exactly which pieces of information influenced their decision, and which pieces of (discriminatory) information did not influence their decision.
This isn't something that a smart employer would want to open themselves up to. It seems like the actual cases cited have all been rather limited in scope (checking prison guards for gang affiliation).