Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can an Employer ask a Job Applicant for their Facebook Password?

by David Doorey March 20, 2012
written by David Doorey March 20, 2012

I had several media requests today asking about employers asking job applicants for their Facebook passwords, but I wasn’t sure why.
I just noticed a Toronto Star piece describing how an applicant for a police position was asked to give his Facebook password in a job interview.   My first reaction to this was, “what kind of a sleazy employer would ask for that”.  It’s like asking for the key to an applicant’s diary.  Sadly, there are some out there, even in Ontario apparently.
I’m going to bed, having just come home from yet another awful Leaf game.  But my first take on this is that asking a job applicant for their Facebook password is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, and unlawful.  Take a look at Section 23 of the Code, which sets out rules relating to job application forms and interviews.  Here is what is says:

Application for employment
23(2) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The prohibited grounds include: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
Section 23(2) says that an employer can’t ask a job applicant for information that “directly or indirectly” classifies a person by a prohibited ground.  In other words, it is none of an employer’s business if you are married or single (family status), whether you are gay, straight, or bisexual (sexual orientation), what your religion is (creed) or your race, if you are Aboriginal, what your skin colour is, where you are from, how old you are, whether you have children (family status), and whether you have a disability. Some of these things will be evident by the interview stage (like skin colour and maybe disability), but the employer certainly cannot ask you to disclose other information about prohibited grounds that are not self-evident in the interview.  Moreover, Section 23 doesn’t just ban the question “Are you disabled?”, it bans other questions that are likely to give the employer the answer to that question, such as “Can you lift 50 pounds and stand for extended periods of time?”.  The objective is to keep information about the applicant’s association with prohibited grounds out of the hands of employers during the recruitment stage.

Now ask yourself whether your Facebook page might disclose any of the protected information to a prospective employer?
Does it say if you are married or single?  If so, none of employer’s business, and illegal to ask for a means to check that.
Does it indicate your sexual orientation, or your marital status?  If so, none of employer’s business, and illegal to ask for a means to check that.
Does it indicate your religion?  Your age?  Where you were born?  Whether you have children?  If so, none of a prospective employer’s business, and they are breaking the law if they ask you to provide them with access to this information.

Odds are most Facebook pages do indicate some or all of these things. Therefore, the Code prohibits an employer from asking about it, or asking you to provide a secret password that will allow the employer to access this information.
Put it this way:  Could an prospective employer ask you directly what church, temple, or synagog you attend, or whether you are married, gay, or have children?  Of course not.  So why can they ask you for the key to access a personal webpage that would tell them that information indirectly.  If you have a piece of paper locked in your glove compartment with all the info about your sexual orientation, religion, family, and age, can an employer insist on having the key?
To me, this is a no-brainer (though others may disagree, of course).  I think it is against the law for an employer to ask for a secret password to a personal Facebook account, in Ontario at least.  I would have to look at the human rights legislation of the other Canadian jurisdictions.     If you are an employer,  don’t ask for this information.  It’s illegal, irrelevant, and none of your business.  The Human Rights Commission should issue a strong and clear paper stating this–perhaps it already has, I haven’t looked.
Of course, applicants who refuse to give the password to an employer that asks for it may not get the job.  They could file a human rights complaint, and in theory the Tribunal could order the employer to hire them.  But that doesn’t happen very often, and anyways, the complainant would probably be satisfied with taking some cash rather than accept a job under these circumstances.  So my advice to job seekers who think they might run into an illegal request for access to personal information on their facebook page is to create second dummy page for that purpose.  Put innocuous stuff on that page, making sure it doesn’t disclose anything that you would not want an employer to see.  Give the law-breaking employer the password to that page, if you really need the job. Anyone see any problem with that advice?  [Post-script: I’m told that it is a violation of facebook rules to open two accounts, for what that is worth]
Does anyone think I am wrong about this?  If so, tell me why an employer can ask for private information that is likely to disclose a whole range of information that the Human Rights Code prohibits an employer from asking about?  Am I missing something obvious here?

17 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can Employees Be Fired for Wearing an Orange Shirt to Work?
next post
My Chapter in New Book: Business Ethics: Concepts, Cases, & Canadian Perspectives

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
9h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
9h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
10h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.