Emerging Issues Archive

Would you Hand Over your Facebook Password on a Job Interview?

March 21st, 2012. By AbiK

You’ve made it to the interview stage—congratulations! Now fork over your Facebook login and password.

Would you do it?

If you really wanted the job, chances are you would. But is it right? Or is it an invasion of privacy? Many would say it’s cause for a Facebook privacy lawsuit.

Being asked for your Facebook password is becoming more commonplace as part of the job interview process. Apparently, for the recruiters, it’s the modern day version of a background check, work history and reference check all wrapped up in one. Unfortunately, even innocent posts—or those times you’ve been tagged in friends’ photos—are up for interpretation by the hiring manager or HR person. Beer in hand? Maybe you party too much. And let’s not even talk about those more ‘viewer discretion advised’ posts—or worse.

For job applicants, however, it’s sort of like finding bed bugs in your hotel bed—completely uninvited and unwanted, but you need the darn bed to get some sleep. What to do? Chances are, you ask for another room or find another hotel–but in this job market, other jobs aren’t as easy to come by as a new hotel room.

If ever there were a doubt that employment recruiters and HR professionals are trolling online for dirt on prospective hires, just listen to this:

A recent survey done by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 56 percent of HR pros admit to using social media sites for recruiting; 95 percent say they use LinkedIn; and 58 percent use Facebook.

And while most web-savvier folks correlate LinkedIn with “job search mecca”, many job seekers don’t even know LinkedIn exists. But they know Facebook does. And recruiters know this. So, particularly when targeting non-executive positions, Facebook becomes a go-to source for a wealth of information—supplemental information that otherwise may not bubble up in the interview or reference check process.

But, if a Facebook account is private, well, that little ol’ login and password are needed. And who better to ask for it than the person who created it? And, what better time to ask them for it than when they’re sitting anxiously across the desk from you during their job interview?

In any other setting, most people would withhold such information; after all, isn’t Facebook for connecting with ‘friends’? And for most, it’ll be a cold day in h#ll before they include their HR manager in their circle of FB friends. (Notwithstanding that recent article about Facebook narcissism based on the number of friends you have.)

So handing over a Facebook password would appear to be something you’d only do under duress; you’d only be compelled (coerced?) to provide such information if you felt you HAD to do so—as would be the case if you thought a possible job were on the line.

A recent Associated Press article quotes George Washington University law professor, Orin Kerr, as likening the situation to “requiring someone’s house keys” for the interview. Kerr goes on to call it an “egregious privacy violation”.

And it is. After all, when you consider that an interviewer is not supposed to ask questions about age, marital status, children or health concerns, how is it that the same interviewer should potentially have access to all such information by asking for your Facebook password? Something isn’t right there.

Undoubtedly, we’ll be seeing more Facebook privacy lawsuits sprouting up. But in the meantime, here’s a tip: if you’re job hunting, get a LinkedIn profile. Anything and everything a prospective employer should want or need to know about you can be housed there. Even the professional ‘company you keep’—and linking in with an HR rep is surely less creepy on LinkedIn than on Facebook. Any other information about you can be found via the less intrusive methods: background check, reference checks, drug testing…the usual suspects.

Tags: Facebook, Facebook Password, Facebook Privacy, Internet Privacy, Job Interview, Job Search, LinkedIn
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment, Internet/E-commerce | 96282 Comments »2012-03-21+13%3A10%3A14AbiK

Asbestos News Roundup: 3.15.12 – Asbestos Lawsuit & Settlement News

March 15th, 2012. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

St. Louis, IL: Dennis and Cindy J. Conlogue are suing 22 defendant corporations in their recently filed asbestos lawsuit. Dennis Conlogue developed lung cancer after working as a union carpenter in Michigan from 1972 until 2004 and as a member of the U.S. Army from 1970 until 1972, according to his asbestos lawsuit.

As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Dennis Conlogue became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the lawsuit states. In addition, he became prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff’s safety, the Conlogues claim.

In their eight-count complaint, the Conlogues are seeking compensatory damages of more than $25,000, actual and compensatory damages of more than $75,000, aggravated damages of more than $25,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000, in their asbestos lawsuit. (madisonrecord.com)

St. Louis, IL: George and Charlotte Moreland filed a lawsuit against 115 defendant corporations. Mr. Moreland developed mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his career as a laborer at Benny’s Auto Sales in Rolla, Mo., from 1963 until 1964, as a laborer at Shorty’s Marathon in Dayton, Ohio, in 1964, as an apprentice bricklayer at Scruggs and Jolly Construction Co. in Cincinnati, Ohio, from 1966 until 1970, as a member of the U.S. Air Force from 1966 until 1970, as a laborer at Union Electric in 1970 and as a laborer at Sprint/United Telephone in Kansas City, Mo., and Overland Park, Kan., from 1971 until 2009.

The Morelands allege George became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of asbestos mesothelioma. Furthermore, Mr. Moreland was unable to work, and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the George Moreland’s safety.

In their 12-count complaint, the Moreland are seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000, actual and compensatory damages of more than $100,000, economic damages of more than $150,000 and other relief the court deems just.(madisonrecord.com)

St. Louis, IL: Further to their mother’s death from lung cancer, Ervin Norful Jr., Connie McCall, Pat Coleman, James Norful, Steve Norful, Mary Hawkins and Kim Norful filed a lawsuit against 44 defendant corporations.

In their complaint, the Norful family alleges that the defendant companies caused Rodessa Norful to develop lung cancer after her exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout her career as a laborer at Bussmann Manufacturing Company from 1969 until 1980s.

As a result of her asbestos-related disease, Rodessa Norful, became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition, she became prevented from pursuing her normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to her, her family claims. Because of Rodessa Norful’s death, her family has incurred funeral costs and has been deprived of her support and society.

Rodessa’s family claim the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for their mother’s safety.

In their six-count complaint, the Norful family is seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000, and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, plus other relief the court deems just. (madisonrecord.com)

St. Louis, IL: An asbestos lawsuit filed by Debra Payne, Jordan Foster, Dawn Browning, Kevin Payne, Derek Payne and Erik Payne names 47 companies as defendants, alleging those companies were negligent in their exercising reasonable care and caution for their father’s safety.

In their lawsuit, the Payne family claims Allen Payne developed lung cancer after he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his work as an assembly line worker at General Motors in St. Louis in 1966 and from 1971 until 1985 and as an aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy from 1966 until 1971.

As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Allen Payne became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the lawsuit states. In addition, he was unable to continue his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, the lawsuit states.

As a result of Allen Payne’s death, his family has incurred funeral costs and has been deprived of his support and society.

In their eight-count complaint, the Payne family is seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish various defendants and to prevent them from committing similar acts in the future, aggravated damages of more than $25,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000 and actual and compensatory damages of more than $100,000. (madisonrecord.com)

Tags: Asbestos, asbestos lawsuit, Asbestos Settlement, asbestosis, asbestos_mesothelioma, mesothelioma
Posted in Asbestos Mesothelioma, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Settlement | 9608No Comments »2012-03-15+20%3A36%3A32LucyC

Beauty Blemish: Avon et al Piss Off PETA, Face Class Action Lawsuit

March 6th, 2012. By AbiK

You’d think Avon would have enough on its vanity right now with those alleged Avon bribery charges in overseas markets and that CEO search they’ve got going on. But, in true hit-’em-when-they’re-down fashion, Avon—along with Mary Kay and Estee Lauder—has just been hit with class action charges—for deceptive and misleading conduct in “marketing, selling, promoting and distributing cosmetic products in the United States”.

More specifically, the newly filed class action is going after the makeup companies’ ‘no animal testing’ claims. (Before we go on, please note, no animals were harmed in the photoshopping of the above image.)

The false advertising class action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Marina Beltran (Beltran et al. v. Estee Lauder, et al., United States District Court – Central District of California, Case No. SA12-CV312 CJC (ANX)) on February 28, 2012. Beltran and her co-lead plaintiffs claim Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay engaged in animal testing on their products even though they advertised that they were “cruelty-free”. The court documents also state that the beauty companies conducted animal testing in order “sell products in China and other foreign countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in sales.” (Wait a minute—China? Wasn’t China the major focus of that Avon bribery investigation?)

The filed court documents state that the “Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive.”

Not one to sit on the sidelines where animal cruelty is concerned, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has kicked the companies off its “cruelty free” list, though I imagine that for Avon, that downgrade hasn’t had quite the same sting as the downgrades given to AVP stock by some analysts recently. When it rains, it pours.

Actually, the PETA downgrade is key to the animal testing class action—the court documents state that because Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay had been granted a cherished spot on PETA’s “cruelty free” list, the companies benefited financially—i.e., customers who proactively sought out cosmetic products that were not tested on animals would refer to PETA’s list and patronize those companies on the list.

It’s estimated that the class size for this one is in excess of 1,000,000 members—and the makeup company animal testing class action lawsuit is seeking compensatory damages of $100M.

Tags: Animal Testing, Avon Products, Class Action Lawsuit, Cruelty Free, Estee Lauder, Mary Kay, PETA
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | 95867 Comments »2012-03-06+16%3A35%3A36AbiK

Like Goo-Gone for Google…Protect Yourself from Google’s Personal Data Grab

February 29th, 2012. By AbiK

Grippy-grabby Google is about to get a whole lot more up-close and personal beginning in March. That’s when all the convenience their new privacy policy is supposed provide officially kicks in. For many, however, the ‘convenience’ is merely a euphemism for ‘intrusion’ and only reinforces the notion that ‘internet privacy’ is the oxymoron of our age. Googlers can,however, make a change to their Google profiles to help stop the intrusion.

If you’ve seen the “We’re changing our privacy policy” notices all over anything and everything Google, and you’ve clicked “Learn more” you’ve seen that the new policy reflects Google’s “desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google”. (Red flag word = ‘intuitive’—ain’t nothing technologically intuitive out there that hasn’t first had some data input to create that intuition; in this instance, it’s Google trawling your every click and collecting the breadcrumbs you’ve dropped along the way).

So for those of you who don’t want the convenience of Google presenting you with intuitively targeted ads on your Google search screens based on your activity on Google’s entire suite of products—like what videos you viewed on YouTube or what you clicked with Google Plus—well, now’s the time to delete your Google web history—and press the proverbial ‘pause’ button on Google’s ability to continue to store your web history. Think of it as Goo Gone®* for Google.

Here’s how to Delete your Google Web History and Protect your Privacy:

1. Sign into your Google account.

2. Type the following URL into your browser bar: https://google.com/history and hit Enter (or Return)

3. Click “Remove All Web History”

That’s it—simply by doing that, you will also stop Google from collecting your web history, until such a time if and when you feel the need for Google to do so again.

Needless to say, this won’t protect you from all things Google—but it sure is a step in right direction when it comes to internet privacy.

*This is not an endorsement of Goo Gone by LawyersandSettlements.com, however, the author does keep Goo Gone on hand to get out of sticky situations.

Tags: Google Ads, Google privacy, Google Web History, Internet Privacy, Online Privacy
Posted in Emerging Issues, Internet/E-commerce | 95302 Comments »2012-02-29+13%3A59%3A24AbiK

You’ve Heard of Thalidomide Babies, what about DES Babies?

February 21st, 2012. By AbiK

It’s a startling reality that DES Mothers, DES Daughters and DES Sons live with—that not many people know about or have heard about the pregnancy drug DES—diethylstilbestrol—or the harmful effects its had on both mothers who took the drug, and children who were exposed to the drug in utero.

DES was prescribed during the 1940′s to the 1970′s to expectant mothers who were at risk for miscarriage or pre-term delivery. The drug, however, was found to potentially cause clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA), a rare form of vaginal and cervical cancer; reproductive tract structural changes such as a T-shaped uterus; complications in pregnancy such as ectopic (tubal) pregnancy and pre-term delivery; and infertility.

DES finally had its FDA approval revoked in 2000 (it had been recommended that doctors not prescibe it in 1971)—but not until potentially millions of mothers and children had been negatively affected by it. And those children are now between forty and seventy years of age or so—some of whom have lived through infertility or miscarriages of their own with out knowing that the reason could be connected to exposure to DES.

And that begs the question: why do so few people know about DES and the damage its caused? DES seems to be in the shadows of thalidomide—so much so that it’s been referred to as the ’silent thalidomide’ in the press.

There are some possible reasons why, of course.

First, thalidomide was never approved for use in the US. DES was approved which perhaps made it appear less pernicious—after all, ‘my doctor prescribed it’.

Second, thalidomide babies could not help but evoke the collective sympathy and outrage of all who had seen a picture of an innocent newborn with severe birth defects such as missing or shortened arms or other severe disfigurement. There are no alarming pictures of DES victims—only faces; and those faces look just like you or me.

And finally, thalidomide, by its horrific nature, wove its way into popular culture—probably the most familiar evidence of this for many is the Billy Joel lyric from “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES), however, has potentially affected many more women in the US—and their children and perhaps their children’s children (aptly called ‘DES Third Generation’)—than thalidomide and is in some ways a much more heinous drug in that DES is the one that slipped through the proverbial cracks—the one that the FDA didn’t put the brakes on—soon enough.

Perhaps you now know about DES. But more importantly, do you know if you were on DES or exposed to it?

Tags: DES, DES Babies, DES Daughters, DES Lawsuit, Diethylstilbestrol, Pregnancy Drug, Stilboestrol, Thalidomide, Thalidomide Babies
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues, lawsuits, Personal Injury | 95063 Comments »2012-02-21+20%3A52%3A43AbiK