Will employee’s Facebook page end his injury lawsuit?
May 26, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: Forklift safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits, What do you think?, new court decision
An employee said a workplace injury left him in pain, unable to “enjoy life’s pleasures” or wear shorts because of an embarrassing scar. Given those claims, attorneys for his former employer were interested in what was on his Facebook page.
Rane Zimmerman injured his left leg while operating a forklift at the Weis Markets warehouse in Milton, PA. He was employed there as a subcontractor. Zimmerman sued Weis for his injury.
But photos on the public part of his Facebook page show him wearing shorts that reveal the leg scar and riding a motorcycle.
Weis Markets filed a motion to gain access to his private Facebook postings.
Zimmerman claimed his privacy outweighed the need to obtain information from his social networking web pages.
Now, a county judge in Pennsylvania has sided with Weis.
“Zimmerman voluntarily posted all the pictures and information on his Facebook and MySpace sites … and he cannot now claim he possesses any reasonable expectation of privacy to prevent Weis Markets from access,” the judge wrote. “Information … gleaned by defendants from the Internet is fair game in today’s society.”
A lawyer for Weis Markets said he has received passwords, user names and log-in names for Zimmerman’s Facebook and MySpace pages as ordered by the judge.
Do you agree with the judge’s opinion? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Loading ...
May 26th, 2011 at 7:58 am
I absolutely agree with the judge.
May 31st, 2011 at 8:05 am
No I do not agree this is right as facebook and myspace have setting to keep people out other then the people you invite to see your page.
I think this is crossing a line and everyone will suffer for it.
May 31st, 2011 at 8:16 am
I most certainly do agree with the Judge’s decision. There are way too many cases of fraud these days which ruins it for the legitimate claims and the honest people who are injured and not looking to just make a buck!!
May 31st, 2011 at 9:55 am
The employer used material already available on the public part of the site (info available in the public domain) to establish Reasonable Cause to access the private information. Given that establishment of Cause, I concur with the judge.
June 1st, 2011 at 4:55 pm
It’s just my opinion, but anyone who puts anything on a social media type website with any expectation of privacy is a fool. Never post anything on a social media site that you wouldn’t want your boss, mother, or worst enemy to see because if they really want to see it, chances are they can. In this particular case, the employee made the mistake of exposing his blatant case of fraud (or at least extreme exaggeration) by posting a picture on the public portion of his social media site. I agree with the judge on this one.
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Some people clearly need to rethink their definition of privacy. A lot of people today seem to think that privacy is something we carry around and can invoke at will, such as those who complain that traffic cameras on public streets somehow invade their privacy. “Anytime I don’t notice anyone watching me” is not a good working definition of a private moment. Social media privacy settings fuel this misconception, in spite of the universal agreement among internet security experts that nothing you have shared on the world wide web should ever be construed as even remotely private. Examining what you share among your friends does not constitute an unreasonable search, given that your best friend can be legally subpoenaed to testify against you. The only privacy you can depend on in this life is the privacy of your own thoughts.
June 7th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I totally agree with the the judge. In California if someone claims to be injured and is videotaped doing heavy lifting, for instance, such video evidence is only admissible if it comes from a licensed private investigator. If you or your kid catches the person in act, guess what? That video doesn’t count. The internet is open to everyone. If such easily available public information is not allowed, what is? The judge is using good common sense, something in short supply these days.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:00 am
The Judge is absolutely correct!
June 10th, 2011 at 8:07 am
I totally agree with the judge’s ruling. To post on social media and expect privacy is foolhardy.