Minnesota Law Review

Note, It Can Do More Than Protect Your Credit Score: Regulating Social Media

A growing number of employers are factoring job candidates’ social media profiles into their hiring decisions. Employers value social media pre-employment screening because it provides access to previously unobtainable applicant information. However, job candidates are wary of social media pre-employment screening due to concerns over the trustworthiness and authenticity of information obtained from the Internet. It should come as no surprise, then, that there is sharp disagreement over the legality of social media pre-employment screening. Early efforts to regulate social media pre-employment screening focused on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fourth Amendment. These efforts were largely unsatisfactory because they failed to ensure accuracy and relevancy during the social media pre-employment screening process.

Thanks in large part to the emergence of third parties that offer to conduct social media pre-employment screening for employers, a new regulatory solution responsive to applicants’ privacy interests is now available. The Note recommends that the Fair Credit Reporting Act should be amended to require all employers interested in using social media to evaluate job candidates to use third-party screening companies. By doing so, social media pre-employment screening will be subject to the fairness constraints of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including its notice and consent requirements. Finally, the Note argues that the Federal Trade Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be the primary parties responsible for monitoring employers’ social media pre-employment screening and its compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]