The Municipality first contends Maldonado is precluded from arguing she suffered an abusive work environment due to incidents that occurred outside the workplace. Maldonado responds that “her absence from the workplace did not make her any less subject [to] attack” from harassing messages. The parties do not cite supporting authority for their arguments. In Crowley, the First Circuit held that “[c]ourts . . . permit evidence of non-workplace conduct to help determine the severity and pervasiveness of the hostility in the workplace as well as to establish that the conduct was motivated by gender.” ….Accordingly, Maldonado is not precluded from relying on the Facebook messages she received solely because they occurred outside the workplace.

This makes perfect sense. Imagine a sexual harassment situation at work where the harassment continues outside of work hours. The nasty behavior outside of the office merely reinforces that the behavior at work is both offensive and unwelcome.

The 24/7 social media conundrum.

We can change the facts up a bit and still reach the same conclusion. That is, even if the harassing Facebook messages were sent to the plaintiff from a non-office computer, they could still contribute to a hostile work environment. This is especially true if the plaintiff reads them at work.

I’ve discussed before what’s been referred to the 24/7 social media conundrum. That is, as soon as employee abuse of social media — whenever it takes place — touches the workplace, then it becomes the employer’s problem. Therefore, employers should treat these social media harassment issues as they would any other form of harassment: Take them seriously, investigate, and take reasonable steps designed to end it.