Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Work from Home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Independent Contractors
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Human Resource Department
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- Young v. UPS
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Amazon
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Creech v. Brown
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Lane v. Franks
- Micro-unit
- Security Checks
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- "Ban-the-box"
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Cloud
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Crystalline Silica
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- COBRA
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Earnings
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Freedom of Speech
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Home Health Care Workers
- Jury duty
- KYSHRM 2013
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Payroll
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Private employers
- Reference checks
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Municipal Liability
- Online Account Protection
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Public Sector Liability
- Record Retention
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Crisis Management
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Federal Department of Labor
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Salary Threshold
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Do LinkedIn Endorsements Create a Chink in Professionalism?
LinkedIn is touted as the “World’s Largest Professional Network.” A far cry from more personal social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, LinkedIn keeps the emphasis on people’s employment and their professional connections. Consider it like a networking event, only online. Unlike in-person networking, though, LinkedIn enables people to make connections with anyone, anywhere.
Last year, LinkedIn added a new feature to its site: LinkedIn Skill Endorsements. According to the site, “Endorsing others is a great way to recognize your colleagues for the skills you’ve seen them demonstrate. It helps contribute to the strength of their profile, and increases the likelihood they’ll be discovered for opportunities related to the skills their connections know they possess.” This sounds great, right? Everyone appreciates acknowledgement; the endorsements are like a virtual thumbs-up or even a letter of recommendation. But, what if the person endorsing you has it wrong? What if the person endorsing you does not even know you?
If you are like me, you are not overly selective when it comes to accepting invitations from people on social media sites. If someone wants to connect with me via LinkedIn, I generally accept the request. The more, the merrier. Even if I do not recognize someone’s name on an invitation, I normally will go ahead and accept in order to see what connections we might share. The result is that my LinkedIn circle is pretty large and includes many people whom I only vaguely know and, reciprocally, people who know very little about me and my career.
Yet, these people can endorse me for whatever skills they believe I possess. In the legal field, this presents numerous issues teetering on ethical boundaries. All attorneys must abide by rules promulgated by the American Bar Association. For example, ABA Model Rule 7.1 states that a lawyer is not to make any false or misleading claims about his or her services. If someone endorses me on LinkedIn for patent law work, of which I have no experience with, am I allowing a false claim to be made about my services? Do I have an obligation to remove the endorsement from my page?
Granted, many professionals are not subject to such stringent regulations. However, no matter what the profession, these endorsements may do more harm than good.
For starters, they are just too easy to make. With a few clicks, I can endorse a Human Resources manager with the skills of “insurance planning” or “contract negotiations.” But an HR manager may not have experience with either. How does it help a professional if she is endorsed for skills she in actuality does not have? Endorsements, if not monitored by the receiving person, can create a false image.
There is also the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” dilemma. Should you reciprocate an endorsement? And, if everyone returns the favor, do endorsements become meaningless? My rule of thumb is to only endorse someone for whom I would write a letter of recommendation; I must have seen their skills in action and interacted with them on a personal level.
LinkedIn has enabled a feature that allows users to hide endorsements, so that they are not visible to others. While you may or may not choose to use this feature, I do recommend actively monitoring your profile. If you are an employer, educate your employees about the nature of LinkedIn endorsements. After all, employees’ endorsed skills are a reflection of your business. If you operate a flower shop and one of your employees is endorsed as an “expert botanist,” but in reality she is just a teenager who likes flowers, it may be misleading to customers. Professional endorsements, no matter the format, should always be honest and accurate.
If you are an employer and are interested in knowing more about social media policies in the workplace, contact the employment law attorneys at McBrayer.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.