Issues Employers Should Be Aware of in Light of the Facebook Case

October 28, 2021
Jeremy Saint Laurent, Esq

Facing Whistleblower Concerns

Facebook is currently in very murky waters with both the federal government and with its users. Employers should pay attention to the multitude of issues surrounding this matter to better understand potential exposure and develop a response plan.


On Oct. 5, after leaking sensitive Facebook documents to the media and the Securities Exchange Commission, whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before Congress. Haugen’s testimony provided the Senate subcommittee with a glimpse into how Facebook’s policies negatively impact the mental health of its users, particularly children; creates political and social discord; and undercuts democratic ideologies.


Although dealing with public and agency scrutiny is not uncharted territory for Facebook after facing similar allegations during the last two presidential elections, these newly raised allegations of misconduct appear to be especially worrisome because Haugen was a Facebook insider. Haugen was employed in a department within Facebook tasked with investigating how the platform’s algorithm spreads misinformation and how the network was being used by our nation’s foreign rivals. In short, Haugen is believable, credible, and convincing because her allegations amount to Facebook disbanding and ignoring the work of herself and her colleagues in the pursuit of financial growth.


In a recent NPR interview, attorney Andrew Bakaj, who represents Haugen, stated that “we have made lawful, protected disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to Congress. Such disclosures are protected both by law and Facebook’s own internal policies.”


Bakaj correctly states that federal whistleblower protections afford employees and ex-employees a broad range of legal protections for alerting law enforcement, the SEC, and Congress of potential malfeasance. Typically, employers have no legal recourse if that’s the only thing a whistleblower does to report potentially incriminating information. In fact, a Facebook representative told the Senate subcommittee that the company won’t retaliate against the whistleblower for speaking to Congress.

Lessons Employers Should Learn from the Facebook Whistleblower Fiasco

Employees who come forward to the SEC and/or government regarding perceived misconduct are often covered by federal whistleblower protections and other laws, like wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In a 2014 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that privately owned companies, in addition to publicly traded companies, may be subject to whistleblower liability if they retaliate against an employee or former employee who reports malfeasance to the appropriate agencies.


Massachusetts, like most states, adheres to the at-will employment model. The at-will employment doctrine allows an employer or an employee to terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice. However, in addition to federal whistleblower protections, employees are afforded additional protections under state law.


Commonly referred to as ‘wrongful discharge,’ wrongful termination in violation of public policy is a sort of catch-all, judge-made rule that prohibits employers in many states from firing an employee who opposes or refuses to participate in certain unlawful or unethical activities. In Massachusetts, an employee has a viable claim for wrongful discharge if they have a reasonable belief that they are preventing a violation of law. An employee who complains internally that his employer allegedly violated a criminal statute will, more often than not, have a claim for wrongful violation of public policy.


Employers must be conscious of when employees make complaints about possible violations of the law, and be cautious of terminating employees who refuse to conform to a company policy or engage in some action because they believe they are preventing a violation of law.


However, the tide turns when an employee takes things a step further and disseminates confidential information to the media or a competing organization. In the situation of Facebook, before Haugen resigned from Facebook, she copied thousands of pages of confidential documents and shared them with the SEC and Congress, but also with the Wall Street Journal, which in turn, authored a series of articles containing the classified information. Although sharing the information with the Journal does not make Haugen’s actions any less heroic, it may muddy the waters when it comes to what protections she is afforded under whistleblower protection and applicable state law.


Releasing information to media outlets or competing organizations can be in violation of many non-disclosure agreements entered into between the employee and employer during the onboarding process. Because most non-disclosure agreements exclude disclosure only to agencies like the SEC and Congress, employers can explore legal recourse through vehicles like breach-of-contract claims. Typically, non-disclosure agreements require employees to return or destroy confidential documents prior to or immediately after either party terminates the employment relationship. Essentially, non-compete agreements are structured to allow employees to utilize their legal right to report potentially illegal activity or policies within their company while protecting the employers’ legal rights and interest by limiting the types of disclosures allowed.


Should an employer choose to pursue a claim against an employee or former employee for exceeding the bounds of protected activities as outlined by whistleblower regulations and state laws, the employer may seek as damages any severance paid at the time of departure, private pension accrued by the former employee, stock options paid in connection to employment, and general monetary damages.


If you find yourself as an employer in a similar situation, be sure to consult with your labor employment counsel before moving forward with any employment action.


Jeremy Saint Laurent, Esq. is a litigation attorney who specializes in labor and employment law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council; (413) 586-2288; jsaintlaurent@theroyallawfirm.com.


This article was published in BusinessWest. Click here.

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Modern Leadership Through Coaching

June 20, 2025
“Ability is what you’re capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” This quote from my Notre Dame football coach, Lou Holtz, has not only resonated with me through all aspects of my life, but it has guided me in coaching employees for success. Indeed, in playing for Coach Holtz in the late 1980s and winning a national championship with him, I learned quite a bit about leadership and accomplishing goals. The following takeaways that I learned as a young adult are what I have implemented into my professional life. While the objectives of leadership — driving performance, fostering engagement, and cultivating growth — remain constant, the ways in which we motivate our teams have evolved with each generation. What inspired Baby Boomers may not resonate with Millennials or Gen Z. Understanding these generational shifts is key to effective leadership today. In today’s work environment, coaching employees is not just a leadership tactic — it’s a strategic imperative. Remote work has reshaped communication, and employee expectations have shifted toward development and purpose. Coach Holtz’s quote serves as a simple but powerful framework for effective coaching: leaders must recognize ability, fuel motivation, and shape attitudes to bring out the best in their teams. Recognizing Ability: Know What Your People Can Do The first step in coaching is understanding each employee’s strengths and capabilities. This means going beyond résumés and job descriptions to truly observe how individuals think, solve problems, and interact with others. When leaders understand what their team members are capable of, they can align tasks and goals in ways that challenge without overwhelming. Coaching helps bridge the gap between raw potential and real-world performance. Inspiring Motivation: Help People See the Why Motivation is deeply personal. What drives one employee may not matter to another. Effective coaches take time to learn what inspires their team — whether it’s growth opportunities, recognition, or a sense of purpose. By connecting everyday work to larger goals and company values, leaders can unlock intrinsic motivation. Motivated employees are more likely to take initiative, push past obstacles, and grow within the organization. The Leader’s Role in Shaping Attitude Attitude determines how work gets done. A coach’s role is to cultivate a culture where positivity, resilience, and accountability thrive. This involves addressing challenges by considering setbacks as chances for learning and demonstrating emotional intelligence. Leaders who coach with empathy and encouragement set the tone for how their teams respond to pressure, change, and collaboration. From Feedback to Forward Momentum Coaching isn’t about occasional feedback — it’s about ongoing dialogue. Regular check-ins, clear communication, and actionable suggestions create an environment where employees feel supported and empowered. Effective coaching helps people take ownership of their growth, rather than waiting for direction. It turns feedback into fuel for development. Coaching in the Modern Workplace Hybrid teams, technological shifts, and generational changes have made coaching even more essential. Today’s leaders must be more intentional about building connections and offering guidance, especially when face-to-face time is limited. Virtual coaching tools can help, but the foundation remains the same: genuine curiosity, active listening, and consistent support. The Lasting Impact of a Great Coach Coaching done well builds more than just stronger employees — it builds stronger people. When leaders take the time to develop ability, ignite motivation, and nurture the right attitude, they create lasting value for individuals and the organization. As Coach Holtz wisely reminds us, performance is not just about what you can do — it’s about how and why you do it. Derek Brown is chief administrative officer at the Royal Law Firm, LLP and a retired, nine-year NFL veteran who also gives speeches on leadership and teamwork to accomplish goals. The Royal Law Firm LLP, is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Derek Brown wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.