Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Company Intranet Policies Raise Legal Issues

Written on .

Many companies like the comradery interest created on company intranets.  The idea is to share workplace news and give workers a platform to speak about them.  However, controversial postings can create difficult legal issues and other controversy.

Examples include the firing of certain Alaska Airlines flight attendants after responses to an article on the company’s intranet explaining its support for the Equality Act, which would add gender identity and sexual orientation as specific protected classes under certain federal civil rights statutes.  One of the workers was fired by asking the company if it thought it was “possible to regulate morals,” and another posted a comment about how she thought the proposed law would allow sexual predators easier access to victims.  The airline interpreted that remark as discriminating against transgender people by equating them with sexual predators.  The flight attendants, in turn, considered their posts expressions of their Christian religious beliefs.  These type issues are increasing and create difficult legal issues.  

Some of the legal dilemma results from legal considerations that employees should not be punished for expression amounting to religious exercise, balanced against the concern about the posts as the employer has a duty to avoid allowing a hostile work environment.  

While it is possible to set forth policies concerning the use of a company intranet “the devil is in the details” in applying such concepts.  Further, employers may be accused on their own intranet system of unlawful discrimination or harassment, or unfair treatment, and/or postings may encourage union activity or other concerted activity.  

While some employers may react to these issues by shutting down an intranet forum for comment, some employers may desire to ascertain workforce sentiments or promote workplace news.  A possible option is to allow comments on some posts and not others.  For example, it might be prudent to block responses to posts on the company’s diversity programs, with the option of contacting Human Resources directly with any concerns. 

    This article is part of our October 2025 Newsletter. 

    View the newsletter online

    Download the newsletter as a PDF

    Get Email Updates

    Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.
    chaotic light lines
    On July 10, 2026, E-Verify notified employers that work authorization is extended temporarily through July 24, 2026, for workers from the f…
    connected spheres
    The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced on April 22, 2026, a new proposed rule clarifying when multiple employers are jointly liable f…
    plaintiff sign
    The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) encourages the use and enforcement of arbitration agreements, although the Act contains an exception for…
    3
    On April 13, 2026, President Trump nominated James Macy to fill the third vacant Republican seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLR…
    deception
    An employer official named in a graphic sexual harassment suit brought a counter-claim against her accuser for defamation, calling his alle…
    pointing to computer
    No personnel issues have been debated longer and more thoroughly than that of the utility of performance reviews.  Some argue that such rev…