Hi, Chris–thanks for your comment. I think the key word in your statement is “only.” Although the article made some very generalized statements (to my mind, anyway), I think it was directed primarily toward over-reliance on social media recruiting–and that’s obviously bad strategy from a sourcing standpoint, with or without legal implications. But there are still some interesting questions raised, and as you suggest, this topic should be taken seriously. One point of the Workforce article was that litigation lags far behind actual events, so it’s not yet clear what types of complaints may be coming along. A wide assortment of practices that rely on technology could yet be called into question. On a practical level, it seems like common sense and integrity continue to be the “best practices.”

Hi, Marc–thanks for your comment. I had a similar thought when first reading the article; then I got to the part about the risks of “upgrading” job requirements to add any criteria that cannot be obviously and directly related to performance in a specific job. (My paraphrase.) As a general example–I’m guessing a requirement related to social media might be considered reasonable for a marketing position, but not for a job in accounting. So for now, recruiters may have to negotiate carefully between existing employment law and emerging realities.

This “exclusion” of an entire candidate pool is actually a valuable selection criteria.