Can I Use Facebook to Screen Potential Recruits?

31 July 2015

   As published in CK Momentum Issue 6 (Click here to download)

If social media is a necessary workplace “evil”, then what lies beneath is the often practised, but rarely mentioned, custom of “Facebook stalking”. This involves reviewing the social media postings of potential job candidates, political candidates and, in some instances, relationship candidates.

Employment & Industrial Relations Partner Belinda Hapgood considers the employment law dynamics at play when an employer chooses (as part of its recruitment practice) to conduct social media checks and screen (ie hire or reject) candidates based on what might be found there.


An employer could come unstuck if the posts reveal something about a job candidate that constitutes a “protected” attribute. For example, the candidate is a member of a particular political party or union, is of a particular religious persuasion, or is planning on becoming (or actually) pregnant.

These characteristics (and many others) are attributes that discrimination legislation prevents employers from using as a basis for a “failure to hire” decision (in the same way that questions about these matters cannot be asked in the interview process). The employer who discovers these matters via a social media search is equally exposed to a discrimination complaint if they use these characteristics to form the basis of a hiring decision – granted, though, that this may be difficult to establish.

Although it is not necessarily unlawful to search social media to understand whether the candidate who presents at interview has a matching online presence, care must be taken to document what is found and the role (if any) that information plays in a recruitment decision. Suggestions to avoid making unlawful decisions on social media findings include searching only publically accessible sites (eg don’t “friend” a candidate on Facebook simply to gain access to their profile) and separate the decision maker from the social media reviewer. The reviewer’s task is to “remove” any discriminatory data from the social media review in a report they then provide to the decision maker.

Ultimately, it’s worth remembering that people are rarely what they present either in interview or online and, as with all recruitment decisions, “hire slowly to prevent the need to fire fast”.

This bulletin is produced as general information in summary for clients and subscribers and should not be relied upon as a substitute for detailed legal advice or as a basis for formulating business or other decisions. ClarkeKann asserts copyright over the contents of this document. This bulletin is produced by ClarkeKann. It is intended to provide general information in summary form on legal topics, current at the time of publication. The contents do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters. Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation. Privacy Policy


…and we’ll email you valuable insights into issues affecting you and your business.

More Insights

The Voidable Transaction Regime – A summary

The Voidable Transaction Regime – A summary

The voidable transaction regime under Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) provides a framework for liquidators to pursue recovery action against parties who have received property or some form of benefit from an insolvent company.  In turn, the...

read more