Judges Rule Google Search by Employer Not Illegal

An anonymous reader passed us a link to an Ars Technica article about a failed lawsuit over a Google search. A federal circuit court of appeals has upheld the original ruling against David Mullins, who claimed that Googling his name constituted ex parte communications prior to firing him. "Through a series of events, Mullins' employer found that he had misused his government vehicle and government funds for his own purposes — such as sleeping in his car and falsifying hotel documents to receive reimbursements, withdrawing unauthorized amounts of cash from the company card, and traveling to destinations sometimes hundreds of miles away from where he was supposed to be ... Mullins' supervisor provided a 23-page document listing 102 separate instances of misconduct. Mullins took issue with a Google search that Capell performed just before authorizing his firing. During this Google search, Capell found that Mullins had been fired from his previous job at the Smithsonian Institution and had been removed from Federal Service by the Air Force."

Comments

it wasn't

[gEvil (beta)]

So according to him it wasn't the 102 documented instances of misbehavior that were presented to him before the Googling that did him in. It was the Googling that confirmed his pattern of behavior that did him in...Give me a break, guy. Not to mention, with a resume like that, he's bound to be hired as CEO for some major pharmaceutical company or something...

Google before hiring

[stm2]

What about googling before hiring? Could be more efective.

Employers usually do a search before hiring.

[iknownuttin]

Does this decision give the green light for employers to start Googling their employees?

A lot of employers do a search before hiring. If not on Google then with ChoicePoint.

That's one of the reasons those Duke lacrosse players were fighting their charges so hard. One of their parents told Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" after claiming that this case would ruin their kids life, that in the future when they apply for a job, the employer will Google their kids name and this case will come right to the top.

That's one of the dark sides of the internet. If you get accused of a crime, it's all over the internet. And even if you're acquitted, charges dropped, or found innocent, you're now all over the internet, and people will see that and immediately assume the worst.

Yeah, the guy in TFA appears to have committed all of those acts, but what about folks falsely accused or in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What was it? Keep repeating a lie and it becomes true? Well, on the internet, it's donw automatically.

Re:Employers usually do a search before hiring.

[pytheron]

That's one of the dark sides of the internet. If you get accused of a crime, it's all over the internet. And even if you're acquitted, charges dropped, or found innocent, you're now all over the internet, and people will see that and immediately assume the worst.

Newspapers in the UK are just as bad. People get accused of something, and before they have gone to trial, their name is mud. Now, alot of the time when they are found innocent, or the paper had a case of mistaken identity, if they even bother to point this out, it's in the tiniest retraction wedged inbetween some columnist and the sports.

I think it would be fairer if they were forced to commit the same amount of coverage to the real outcome.

As long as people remember that popular opinion (which most tabloids come under) is not fact, then things aren't too bad. If a google search comes up with a trend of behaviour, don't take it as gospel but use this as a basis for a more thourough background check via more conventional means, e.g: contacting past employers.

Re:Employers usually do a search before hiring.

[iknownuttin]

And, when not hired for a job, do they EVER get told WHY exactly they weren't hired?

You remind me of a friend of mine. in the late '90s when everyone, including him, was making great money, he was saving and investing - while his colleagues were buying BMWs and big houses.

When the bubble burst, he shrugged his shoulders, and took some time off - he was tired from working 60+ hours a week for years at a time. He had plenty of money saved so it wasn't any big deal. He did charity work, read, bummed around, got into shape, got a masters degree, etc....

When he started getting low on money, he tried to get a job again. Nothing.

He got feedback from two people - one indirectly and one directly.

The first guy just told a friend of his that if he was any good, he would never have been out of work. The second person, a doctor friend, just came out and asked, "Are you an alcoholic?"

The worst is ALWAYS assumed. And it's a sad thing with this society where the thought of somebody being good with their money and wanting to take time off every once in a while is actually a detriment to one's career. In a way, we are slaves to the corporate system. If you don't play the game correctly, you lose.

My friend is now doing menial work and trying to start a couple of businesses. He's actually happier overall. He does miss the 6 figure income, as do we all! Luckily, his wife is in medical.

Wahhh! Wahhh!

[smooth wombat]

I got caught and I don't like it. I want to be able to steal from my employer and rip the taxpayers off. Everyone does it so why should I be penalized?

Wahhh! Wahhh!

For as much as we rip government agencies for wasting money, three cheers for NOAA for tracking down this asshat and firing him.

The real question is, and one which is not answered in the article, are they going to get the money back from him?

This is bullshit

[disasm]

All this employee protection crap is bull shit. An employer should be able to hire/fire anyone they want without having to go through a bunch of red tape. Same thing with unemployment. There is no reason that an employer should ever have to continue to pay someone they fired because the person is too lazy to get off their butt and find a job. Come on, enough with employee rights, where are our employer rights... And don't get me started on the double taxation that happens with self employment tax. This country needs some serious reform in the way we run businesses. Citizens should be encouraged to start a business in something they enjoy, not discouraged with the threat of having to pay someone unemployment pay because they do a shitty job and you don't want them to work for you anymore.

So, back to the story, why is googling someone illegal? If I'm an employer, yes, I want to know what other employers have though of this person. There is no reason their should be any laws against researching the person you are hiring.

Sam

Re:This is bullshit

[david_thornley]

All this employee protection crap is bull shit. An employer should be able to hire/fire anyone they want without having to go through a bunch of red tape.

In the US, they do, pretty much. There are a few exceptions, relating to discrimination against those frequently discriminated against. Remember the recent Best Buy decision to fire their higher-paid salespeople? That's legal.

Same thing with unemployment. There is no reason that an employer should ever have to continue to pay someone they fired because the person is too lazy to get off their butt and find a job.

Too lazy, or temporarily unable? When there is an economic downturn, and thousands of people are laid off through no fault of their own, it's better for them, and for the economy as a whole, if they get some money. Think of unemployment insurance as one of the things standing between us and a 1929-style Depression.

Come on, enough with employee rights, where are our employer rights...

They're there. If a company wants, say, a competent software engineer, they can generally get one. If a competent software wants a good job, that can be more difficult, and a delay is more significant.

And don't get me started on the double taxation that happens with self employment tax.

There is no double taxation with self-employment tax. What there is is sleight-of-hand with regular employment. There's something misleadingly called the employer's contribution to Social Security, but the fact is that it's part of the employer's payroll tax that goes to the Federal Government rather than the employee. It doesn't show up on the paycheck stub, so it just doesn't look as bad. With self-employed people like me, the government can't pull that legerdemain, so I get to see all the pay-related taxes I pay up close and personal.

Citizens should be encouraged to start a business in something they enjoy, not discouraged with the threat of having to pay someone unemployment pay because they do a shitty job and you don't want them to work for you anymore.

Citizens are encouraged to start businesses. Something like 80% of businesses fail to last five years. This means that there are five times as many business starts as there are sound businesses. It looks to me like there's plenty of opportunity there for somebody who wants to start a business. In the meantime, hiring is one of the important skills, and there are others. Lots of entrepeneurs make dumb decisions in several things, and like everybody else they often try to find excuses why it isn't their fault.

So, back to the story, why is googling someone illegal?

I thought the story said it was found legal, which is just as it should be. It was taken to court, yes, but one of the nice things about this society is that I can bring potentially stupid arguments to court. The fired employee could have made up several different reasons why he shouldn't have been fired, and it appears (without bothering to RTFA) that none of them would have worked.

I could ask similarly insightful questions:

Why are there government grants for people who post dumb questions on Slashdot?

Why is the sky green with purple spots?

Why did the Allies lose World War II?

In other news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... water is still wet. You can't claim ex parte on such public information. It's been tried and failed on newspaper archive searching more than fifty years ago. I'm guessing Mullins had little to challenge the claims made by his employeer or the information found so he's now pulling at straws.

Honestly nothing to see here ...

So what

[packetmon]

With all of the information people are throwing out there about themselves, they deserve to have it used against them in any shape form or fashion. If you want to be the moron who posts everything about yourself on YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and all those other sites, you have nothing but yourself to blame. They fired me for using drugs! If you're the moron with a picture of you happily holding a bong on MySpace and expected no one but friends to see it, you shot your own self in the foot. Its amazing the level of stupidity some people can get to then come back around and point the finger at everyone but themselves. On other notes... Information pertaining to just about anything on the planet is already readily available. Court records, financial information... All this misuse/abuse of information is made possible by the same people bitching who often turn their cheeks when future misuse in the making is present. You didn't say nothing then... Why bother bitching now... YOU GAVE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY BY NOT ACTING BEFORE WHY BITCH ABOUT IT NOW?

And yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, you're still a reactionary asshole.

Re:Does that mean

[drgonzo59]

Yes, I "fired" a certain Healthcare IT company that was interviewing me after finding out by Googling that they practically run a sweatshop, paying a salary and making people work up to 60hrs/week. They especially love H1B individuals and make them slave day and night, at least for 5 years and if they complain they are fired and are asked to repay the 'legal' fees incurred for their H1B visa processing. I am a citizen, so that would not have concerned me directly but any company that does that is not a place I want to work.

So yeah, if I had not known, I would have been unpleasantly surprised by the working environment. Google works both ways.

Most of the time people complain how "Google has ruined my chances ... blah blah" what they don't realize is that Google can also be used to ones' advantage. If Google can 'store' bad stuff it can also store 'good' stuff. It is not hard at all to create some fictitious online profile (use your name and go to some charity and help the poor kittens forums) so everyone one searching for your name will end up seeing that and think 'oh, how sweet!' Yeah, I thought about starting a personal PR business to manage people's online presense and mold it to whatever they want to appear, but I like programming better...Or at least that's what my online "presense" suggests ;-)

Re:Does that mean

[Lumpy]

"Google has ruined my chances ... blah blah"

no google CANT ruin your chances. YOU ruin your chances.

when an employer google's you and finds you are a contributing editor to high times and run the largest Hemp growing blog on the web. Or finds your myspace and tells how you stole 3 laptops at your last job and bragged about screwing the man, drink like a fool and brag about going to work drunk,etc.....

THOSE ruin your chances.

google-ing me shows up that I am a Scientist, punk band drummer, am missing in IRAQ, design websites, photography, a scriptural scholar, and a editor at a prominent magazine.

Only if you post your own crap or are so incredibly bad that others post it on the net as a warning to others does the stuff get out there and get indexed. If someone knew the names I used for my research they would turn up my usenet posts going all the way back to the mid 90's but googling my name get's you lots of background noise and maybe my public blog that is sanitized for consumption.

This guy must have been a scumbag to get lots of positive hits on him in google or had a uncommon name like Xyzbt Fazatl'rt