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

Does that mean

[MECC]

Does that mean google searches by employee are okay too?

Re:Does that mean

[Deltaspectre]

Sure, but what are you going to do? Fire your boss?

Re:Does that mean

[Bloke down the pub]

Well in Soviet Russia, that did happen once.

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

[Aaron Denney]

had quite a sorted professional and personal past

Sorted: all in order.
Sordid: dirty, immoral.

Re:Does that mean

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Sorted: all in order.
Sordid: dirty, immoral."

Right, he sorted by professional, then personal past. Personally I would have sorted by good and evil, but everybody reads data differently.

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

Re:Does that mean

[sootman]

I don't know about yours, but my past is sorted too--chronologically. :-)

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.

Re:Google before hiring

[element-o.p.]

It's happened to me. I was in a job interview and the interviewer made a passing reference to a piece of information he could only have known about by visiting my web page (music I had posted on-line). He then added "Not that we Googled you or anything."

While I was a little surprised to find out that they had Googled me, I wasn't upset by it -- in fact, I thought it was kind of funny, and in hindsight, I figured it was probably a good idea. And like someone else posted above, it works both ways. You can Google them (both the company, and your future potential boss/coworkers) to make sure the new environment will be a good fit for you, too.

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.

[Applekid]

Hear hear.

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

HR: "Sorry Mr. Jones, we didn't hire you because you murdered those children."
Candidate: "Oh, that again. I was AQUITTED, you know. The real killer CONFESSED and is currently serving time."
HR: *calls security*

No, they'd just get a happy little letter that they've declined to offer a job and will keep his information on file for x months blah blah blah.

It's all set to be the new discrimination. What used to be "we can't hire blacks, they'll steal from us!" now becomes "we can't hire people with any kind of bad press around them, they're obviously trouble!"

I wouldn't even be surprised if there were companies which specialize in revenge, where you can google bomb someone's name and associate it with something unpleasant for a fee.

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.

Re:Employers usually do a search before hiring.

[Bob-taro]

I wouldn't even be surprised if there were companies which specialize in revenge, where you can google bomb someone's name and associate it with something unpleasant for a fee.

There is, I saw it on Dr. Phil. A woman had a website offering various services to get revenge on ex-boyfriends/ex-husbands. IIRC, putting damaging information about them (true or untrue) on the web was one of the tactics.

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?

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?

That's how to get fired

[Oxygen99]

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."

That's shocking. What sort of Draconian employment termination policies are in action here? Removed from federal service by the air force? Usually, I'd just have a quiet word to let the employee know their services are no longer required.

"Security, escort Mullins from the office. Yes, of course I mean with the F-16s..."

we're going back to the future

[sethg]

Once upon a time, just about everyone lived in small communities. You would expect to live, work, and die in the same little town where your parents and your close relatives lived. Once you got a reputation in such a community, deserved or undeserved, it would probably follow you for life.

Then we had the Industrial Revolution, big cities, relatively cheap transatlantic travel, etc., and all of a sudden it was possible--difficult, but possible--to make a clean break with your past and forge a new life. Many of the life-affecting judgements that were previously made by busybody neighbors were instead made by impersonal bureaucrats.

Now, all sorts of personal information about us online and searchable, and folks who grew up with the Net are less inhibited than their elders about putting more personal stuff online. It looks like the Internet is putting us all in the same virtual small town. I don't think that's an entirely good thing, but I don't see how it can be prevented.

Re:Government jobs

[Lijemo]

The (very specific) regulation he claimed was violated applied only to government jobs, not to private sector. So no, it clearly wouldn't have.