Glassdoor Headaches: Is There Anything An Employer Can Do?

The only glass that we employment lawyers used to worry about for our clients was in the ceiling. Now the bigger headaches for employers come from head-on collisions with the Glassdoor. For those unfamiliar with, it started in 2007 and is a 30 million active user online “employment community,” that provides profiles of companies posted by those who claim to be employees and former employees. The profiles include company reviews, salary reports, CEO ratings and information about the hiring process. All of the content is user created; and that is the practical and legal problem. Anonymous contributors can essentially post whatever they want, leaving employers incredibly vulnerable to attack with minimal recourse.

About a year ago, a law firm, allegedly defamed on Glassdoor, decided to fight back. The firm filed a defamation lawsuit against 25 John Does with the intention of learning their identities through the Subpoena process. The firm focused on 12 specific Glassdoor posts about the firm, 3 of which included the following titles:

“For the love of God, do NOT work here”

“New Admitees Beware”

And our favorite: “Working here is Psychological Torture” – which unfortunately describes every law firm in America, so that one is not defamation.

Although Glassdoor has “community guidelines” for content, they are minimal and protect primarily against hate speech, racist and discriminatory statements, and threats of violence. While employers can request a review of content, Glassdoor  promises its users anonymity and protection against retaliation. In a public statement about the Subpoena seeking the identity of the law firm employees, Glassdoor wrote: “It is our standard practice to fight on our users’ behalf to protect their anonymity and rights to free speech…[W]e vigorously fight in court to prevent any user information from being disclosed.”

Sadly, the law firm made the following public statement about those who posted: “Unfortunately, most…are unwilling to recognize their shortcomings and they turn to anonymous blogs to spit their venom. The reality is that they should be upset with their parents for raising lazy and incompetent young adults but they choose to spew false information on…Glassdoor.”

So that might not be the best way to convince a court that the statements about the firm are false, but what do we employment lawyers know about defamation law. We do know this: Glassdoor and similar sites are relatively immune from direct claims for the posts, even if they are defamatory.

The Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law designed to regulate online pornography, also specifically exempts “Internet Service Providers” from liability for the defamatory content of the users. In other words, under the CDA, because Glassdoor is not writing or even publishing defamatory statements, it is merely hosting the material, the website is not subject to suit. Glassdoor even advises on the site that it is not in a position to determine whether the content is truthful. An employer’s primary recourse, short of learning the identity of the users, is to appeal to the site for a review if the post violates the community guidelines or write an online response, which Glassdoor will place directly below the post.

In case you are not already thrilled about the prospect of being trashed online without much recourse, last week Glassdoor upped the ante with the help of the EEOC. The federal agency sued a California employer that terminated a transgender employee who was fired after admittedly posting the following statement on Glassdoor:  “If you’re not a family-oriented, white or Asian, straight or mainstream gay person with 1.7 kids who really likes softball—then you’re likely to find yourself on the outside…Most management do not know what the word “discrimination” means…”

Although not liking softball is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate someone, and we would also like to see that “.7” of a kid, the employer told the transgender employee that he was being terminated because the post showed poor judgment and ethical values. A National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge previously dismissed a case brought by the same employee, rejecting the claim that the Glassdoor post was “concerted protected activity” related to terms and conditions of employment. That judge referred to the post as “a tantrum” and “childish ridicule.” The EEOC case, however, is just starting and the legal issues are different. We will keep an eye on it.

In the last year, we have twice successfully convinced Glassdoor to remove content about two of our clients because of “community guideline” violations. We would be glad to provide counsel  on the limited legal and other ways to respond to this new online challenge and equally, if not more important, on strategies to help avoid running into the Glassdoor in the first place.

Important Lessons From Two Recent Victories



We just ended a federal case in New York by showing, through the forensic analysis of a cell phone, that the alleged unwelcomed sexual advances at the center of a former employee’s sexual harassment claim were entirely consensual. The former employee had wiped her cell phone clean—except for a few texts that supported her story. The turning point came when it was discovered that the alleged harasser’s cell phone was not lost as first thought. Once that phone was found, a forensic analysis produced a treasure trove of salacious texts (e.g., “Come let me have a kiss on those juicy looking lips”), proving what we had long suspected: the married plaintiff had lied under oath about her relationship with the alleged harasser, a woman who worked for the co-defendant company. Armed with those texts, we threatened sanctions and the lawyer for the former employee caved. But it did not end there. The co-defendant company refused to drop its cross claims for defense and indemnification against our client because it was furious that it had to defend a case that had been fabricated by our client’s former employee (though its own employee had also lied about the relationship). However, after receiving our motion for sanctions as to the frivolous cross claims, the co-defendant company also walked away.

The Lesson: Litigations, especially long ones, rarely end with all parties just walking away. The reason it happened here is clear: Text messages – and similar communications, such as Facebook postings, tweets, etc. – can provide powerful insights into the true nature of a disputed workplace relationship. Fighting hard to obtain them during the discovery phase of a case, and then aggressively using them, can put an end to a lot of costly nonsense.



We also recently won the dismissal of a gender-based hostile work environment claim in New Jersey. In that case, the plaintiff worked in a large corporate office and had some untrue but sexually harassing rumors spread about her (e.g., that she was a “high-end escort”). However, she failed to use the company’s anti-harassment policies for two months and then only did so after she was disciplined for insubordination. Despite the curious timing of her internal complaint, our client swiftly investigated her claim, discovered who was responsible for the rumors, and made that individual apologize. Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed that she was so traumatized by the rumors (the ones she had not reported for two months and which ended before she reported them), that she went on disability leave and then only returned to give her resignation notice. Our client, recognizing that the case was a money grab, vigorously defended the claim.  In the end, the court granted our motion and dismissed the case because our client had an effective anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure.

The Lesson: This result is yet another example of why employers need handbooks that include updated and legally-compliant anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures. By such measures, especially when combined with training, employers are best positioned to defend an employment claim. We have seen this work time and time again.