Two Proposed Workplace Laws: Social Media & Remote Work
This paper proposes two new workplace protection laws. The first would require employers to demonstrate measurable organizational harm before using an employee's social media posts as grounds for hiring or firing decisions, shifting the burden of proof from employee to employer. The second would mandate that employers offer remote work options to employees with disabilities — including those with autoimmune conditions that increase vulnerability to communicable diseases like COVID-19 — when the nature of the job permits it. Together, these proposals aim to strengthen existing employee protections and close enforcement gaps in current labor law.
- Introduction: Gaps in Current Employee Protections: Social media use and at-will employment vulnerabilities
- Proposed Law One: Social Media and Employment Decisions: Shifting burden of proof to employers in social media cases
- Proposed Law Two: Remote Work Rights for Disabled Employees: Mandating virtual work options for medically vulnerable employees
- Conclusion: Strengthening Workplace Protections: Summary of both proposals and their legal rationale
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clearly frames a real legal gap — the difficulty of proving that social media monitoring was the actual cause of termination — and proposes a targeted remedy (shifting the burden of proof to employers).
- Grounds the second proposal in existing law (the right to reasonable accommodations) while identifying a specific enforcement failure, making the argument feel incremental and legally credible rather than radical.
- Uses a concrete contemporary example (COVID-19 and autoimmune vulnerability) to illustrate why expanded remote work protections are necessary, giving the abstract legal argument real-world weight.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a policy proposal structure: it identifies a harm, explains why existing law is insufficient, and then proposes a specific legislative remedy for each issue. This technique is effective in legal and public policy writing because it keeps the argument focused on a gap-and-solution logic rather than broad advocacy.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the relevance of social media in daily life and the vulnerability of at-will employees. It then presents two distinct proposals in sequence, each building on acknowledged existing protections while explaining why those protections fall short. The conclusion is implicit in the framing of each proposal. The paper is concise, suited to a policy brief or short legislative commentary format at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Gaps in Current Employee Protections
Social media is an increasingly important part of people's lives. Using social media is often essential to keeping abreast of how local businesses, schools, and communities are operating, as well as to staying alerted to important news stories. Yet many employees fear that what they post on their private social media accounts may be grounds for termination if they are employed at will. While posting protected information about the workplace or slandering a colleague might not fall within the confines of protected speech, employers have considerable leeway in how they read and use employee posts on social media in hiring and firing decisions. Even if an employer acts illegally — for example, checking an employee's Facebook status to see whether they have posted about a new pregnancy or membership in a civil rights organization — it can be difficult to prove that this was the primary reason for the employee's termination.
Proposed Law One: Social Media and Employment Decisions
To provide greater protection for employees, the first proposed law would require employers who demanded access to an employee's social media accounts, or who used social media posts in a hiring or firing decision, to demonstrate that the employee's posts caused measurable harm to the organization. The burden of proof would be placed on employers — not employees — to show that the social media posts harmed the company, rather than that the company simply disapproved of the content. This shift in burden would address a significant enforcement gap in existing U.S. labor law, making it substantially harder for employers to use social media monitoring as a pretext for discriminatory employment decisions.
Conclusion: Strengthening Workplace Protections
Together, these two proposed laws address significant gaps in existing employee protections — one concerning digital privacy and employment decisions, and one concerning the right of disabled workers to perform their jobs safely. By shifting the burden of proof onto employers in social media cases and mandating good-faith exploration of remote work options for disabled employees, both laws aim to close loopholes that currently allow discriminatory or neglectful employer conduct to go unchallenged.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.