8/3/2019 In American Medical Response Case

1/2

In American Medical Response (AMR), a Connecticut ambulance service companyterminated an employee after she posted negative comments about the employer

and her supervisor on her Facebook page. See American Medical Response ofConnecticut, Inc., Case No. 34-CA-12576 (Region 34, NLRB). The employeecomments allegedly included not only profanity but also referred to her supervisoras a psychiatric patient; and scumbag; Following an investigation, on October 27,

2010, the NLRB issued a complaint against AMR, alleging that the dischargeviolated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act because the terminated

employee engaged in protected activity when she posted comments about hersupervisor on Facebook and responded to further comments from her co-workers.

The case came to be known as the Facebook Firing; case, and many employersand attorneys have been anxiously awaiting the National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) ruling

In the NLRB;s view, the employees electronic exchanges constituted an exercise ofher protected right to discuss the terms and conditions of her employment.Specifically, the NLRB charged that AMR policy maintained overly broad rules

regarding blogging, internet posting and communications between employees. TheAMR policy included the following restrictions:

Employees are prohibited from posting pictures of themselves in any media,including but not limited to the Internet, which depicts the Company in any

way, including but not limited to a Company uniform, corporate logo or anambulance, unless the employee receives written approval from the EMSC

Vice President of Corporate Communications in advance of the posting;

Employees are prohibited from making disparaging, discriminatory ordefamatory comments when discussing the Company or the employeesuperiors, co-workers and/or competitors.

The day before the scheduled hearing, the NLRB announced that it had approved asettlement, under which AMR agreed to: (1) revise its overly broad rules; (2)ensure that its rules do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their

wages, hours and working conditions with co-workers and others while not at work;and (3) not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.

8/3/2019 In American Medical Response Case

2/2

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) has announced itsintention to prosecute a charge that an employer's social media, blogging,

and Internet posting policy violates the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA).

On November 2, the NLRB issued a press release concerning an unfair laborpractice complaint issued by its Hartford regional office, which alleges that anemployer violated the NLRA by terminating an employee who posted negativeremarks about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page. SeeAmerican

Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 34-CA-12576 (Region 34, NLRB).The NLRB alleges that the employee's Facebook posting was protected concerted

activity under the NLRA, and, therefore, the employer could not lawfully terminatethe employee for posting such remarks.

In addition to the charge of unlawful termination, the NLRB is alleging that theemployer's blogging and Internet posting policy is "overly broad" and violates the

NLRA because it prohibits employees from posting disparaging remarks about the

company and its supervisors or from depicting the company on the Internet withoutthe company's permission. The NLRB claims that these provisions of the policyunlawfully interfere with employees' exercise of their right to engage in protected

concerted activity under the NLRA.

Although the facts of this case are in dispute and have yet to be tried before an

Administrative Law Judge, the Board's decision to pursue a claim that the policy is"overly broad" is significant and is indicative of a theory that could impact all

employers covered by the NLRA.