WASHINGTON, DC, April 4 (DPI) — Employers large and small now routinely review job candidates’ Facebook and other personal pages before hiring them, employment lawyers say.

And as a result, employers are engaging in a form of “pre-emptive job discrimination”,  lawyers say.

Background checks have always existed, of course, but the routine use of social media to screen workers – for any possible “defect” such as pregnancy or health problems — is new.

“The internet and social media are now central factors in many cases today. from wrongful termination to workplace discrimination,” says Neil H. Deutsch, a veteran employment lawyer at the Hackensack, NJ, law firm of Deutsch Atkins. “And social media is a factor in many hiring decisions.”

This development — the accessing of the internet to examine the personal lives of job candidates — presents a challenging syllogism: An employer wants to know something about a candidate, but if an employer learns  too much, such as his or her religious beliefs, sexual inclinations, political views and health issues, the employer 1) has already broken the law by learning the answers to questions the employer is prohibited from asking in a job interview; and 2) based on that information, the employer decides hiring the candidate is too risky, both legally and financially.

An Ontario software programmer and popular blogger last week highlighted this curious problem when he wrote a mock “resignation letter” to the bosses of his firm. He complained he was unable to hire anyone for a developers position — without breaking any laws or the candidates’ privacy rights. Yes, Canadian employment laws are generally stricter than those in most US states, but states like California, New Jersey and New York similarly have strong employee protections. The letter went viral:

http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign

“My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives,” the Director of Software Development wrote. “I’ve been ‘tainted’ by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can’t even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings.

The letter is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but its popularity on the internet suggested widespread awareness of the issue.