In their focal article, Wilcox etal. (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) provided a thorough overview of the risks to equal employment opportunity that are posed by cybervetting, recognizing that responsibility for ensuring equity in cybervetting should fall on hiring agents and organizations. Contrary to this positioning, however, their recommendations for improving the outcomes of cybervetting are much more specific for job candidates than they are for other entities. Irespond to these recommendations by arguing that members of protected classes should not be burdened with attempting to correct inequitable cybervetting practices, and Iprovide more specific guidance on critical unaddressed issues that employers should incorporate into screening protocols to ensure that cybervetting does not compromise equal employment opportunity.
Members of protected classes should not have to shield social identities
One concern with the recommendations that Wilcox etal. (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) provided for job candidates to improve cybervetting outcomes is that they appear to charge candidates with responsibility for masking their identities as members of protected classes. Though the authors were clear to “stress the responsibility of hiring agents and organizations to reshape cybervetting practices,” (p. X) they still placed considerable burden on job candidates with recommendations such as to strip their social media accounts of “any information regarding any religious affiliation” (p. X). This type of recommendation is problematic for multiple reasons.
To begin, what does this recommendation even mean? Is it calling for job candidates to mask names with religious meaning on social media? Is it suggesting that all pictures in which an individual is wearing attire that may communicate religious associations (such as a hijab, turban, or necklace with a religious symbol) be removed from one’s online presence? Is it recommending that all potential job candidates refrain from posting pictures with their family at religious milestones such as a baptism or bar mitzvah? Is this recommendation going so far as to suggest that candidates refrain from posting wedding photos if they are married in a religious institution? When religion is important to one’s identity, it is incorporated into life activities in such a way that removing “any information regarding any religious affiliation” is both a cumbersome and potentially demeaning recommendation.
This type of “how to” narrative inaccurately portrays resolving discriminatory practices as a shared burden between the target and initiator (Holmes, Reference Holmes2020). Although it may be made with the best of intentions, a recommendation from subject matter experts that potential targets of discrimination manage perceptions of their religious affiliations is likely to heighten the salience of stereotype potential, leading to increased anxiety and negative job market outcomes (Steele, Reference Steele1997). Rather than hold job candidates to the expectation that they will purge evidence of religious associations from their social media accounts, Iargue that employers should implement policies prohibiting engagement in cybervetting practices that have a reasonable likelihood of disclosing candidates’ social identities.
Posts depicting alcohol use, protected status, and the ADA
Wilcox etal. (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) acknowledged that employers may view screening out applicants due to posts depicting alcohol use as a form of “risk management” (p. X) as such posts may be indicative of a candidate’s potential “to be an alcohol abuser” (p. X). Although they recognized that such interpretations may be inaccurate, they omitted from discussion the potential for this type of screening to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Under the ADA, a qualified applicant with alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a person with a disability who is protected against discrimination (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). Because alcohol abuse falls under the umbrella of AUD (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2021), cybervetting with the intent of identifying candidates’ potential “to be an alcohol abuser” could be perceived as targeting candidates who are protected under the ADA.
Although some interpretations of the ADA suggest that employers may consider an applicant’s current alcohol abuse in hiring decisions,Footnote 1 it is clear that an individual with AUD is protected under the ADA if they are in recovery (Henderson, Reference Henderson1991). Consequently, if employers choose to consider past social media posts depicting alcohol use in hiring decisions, they should also assume the burden of verifying that these posts are indicative of current behavior, and that this behavior would interfere with a candidate’s ability to meet job requirements. However, such verification would likely require inquiry regarding a candidate’s disability, which is prohibited under the ADA (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1992). In some cases, employers may successfully argue that job duties incorporate being a role model or brand ambassador and thus they specifically require a candidate to maintain a positive public image (Mook & Powell, Reference Mook and Powell1996), but the cases in which such justification would apply are limited.
This argument may leave the reader wondering, what about candidates who post pictures depicting alcohol use but do not have AUD? Employers should remember that even individuals who are perceived as having an impairment that limits major life activities, such as work, are protected under the ADA (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1992). If an employer doesn’t believe that an individual’s alcohol use will impair their ability to perform job duties, one must wonder why evidence of a candidate’s legal consumption of alcohol would be relevant to employment decisions at all. Given the limited benefits and considerable legal and ethical concerns described above, Irecommend that employers implement cybervetting policies that prohibit consideration of social media posts depicting legal alcohol consumption.
Implementation of controls on cybervetting should more effectively account for systematic discrimination
Although Iappreciate Wilcox etal.’s (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) recommendation that hiring agents should link cybervetting to job responsibilities, Ifail to see this alone as sufficient remediation for the threats to equal employment opportunity that employers introduce when they choose to engage in cybervetting. Ibelieve that it is incumbent upon employers to proactively eliminate discriminatory cybervetting practices. This call goes beyond simply considering cybervetting practices in which hiring agents become aware of candidates’ social identities, but it requires organizations to identify practices that are most likely to be influenced by systematic discrimination and eliminate them, even if these practices can be linked to job responsibilities.
For example, Wilcox etal. (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) discussed the use of LinkedIn to identify recommendations, endorsements, and network size of job applicants. However, such information is likely to be influenced by structural discrimination because social networks are often homogenous in nature (Leonard etal., Reference Leonard, Levine and Joshi2004) and recognition can be influenced by demographic traits (Obenauer & Langer, Reference Obenauer and Langer2019). Thus, evaluating candidates based upon their LinkedIn network size and endorsements perpetuates workplace discrimination in the same way that determining a new employee’s compensation package based upon their compensation history does. Consequently, Irecommend that employers implement cybervetting policies that prohibit consideration of an applicant’s LinkedIn network and interactions.
Wilcox etal. (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) also reported that some job agents feel cybervetting is ethical when consent is provided by job candidates. Considered within the context of their discussion about prior experience with discrimination leading candidates to make concessions on the job market, it is reasonable to expect that candidates who have previously been targets of employment discrimination may feel additional pressure to authorize review of their social media accounts. Thus, even the process of requesting consent for cybervetting may be riddled with inequities. Therefore, employers should not implement “consent to cybervet” policies as a means of justifying potentially discriminatory cybervetting practices. These examples do not represent an exhaustive list of the concerns that employers must address in cybervetting, but instead, they provide examples of the types of often unrecognized threats to equal employment opportunity that organizations must consider when developing cybervetting policies.
Conclusion
I close by saying that Ifully support Wilcox etal.’s (Reference Wilcox, Damarin and McDonald2022) assertions that because cybervetting poses serious threats to equal employment opportunity, it should be avoided by organizations and that it is incumbent upon federal agencies to provide a set of clear guidelines for equitable implementation of cybervetting. Where Idiverge from their recommendations, however, is that although they suggest that organizations who refuse to abandon cybervetting should prioritize aligning cybervetting with organizational objectives, Icontend that these organizations should prioritize ensuring equal employment opportunity. There is no benefit great enough to justify cybervetting if the cost is discrimination. Cybervetting has not created a need for new principles of equal employment opportunity; it has simply created a new context within which existing principles must be applied. Although Wilcox etal. may be accurate in their assumption that despite recognition of risk, some organizations will not voluntarily abandon cybervetting, it is critical to acknowledge that organizations that continue to engage in cybervetting assume both the legal and ethical responsibilities of implementing policies and procedures that support equal employment opportunity.
