355 Friends = Too Many?

One study found that when you get a new Facebook “friend,” you get happy. But as you collect more and more friends and start to compare your life with the lives depicted (and often distorted) on their Facebook pages, you feel like a loser.

So, what’s the magic number of Facebook friends? 354, according to the study.

Facebooking = Depressed Dudes?

Another study found a link between time spent on Facebook and depressive symptoms, especially in young men. “Facebook seems to be a new medium for men to compete with one another,” said Mai-Ly Nguyen, one of the study’s researchers.

Facebook Whining = Friend Losing?

Another study concluded that there’s a whole lot of whining going on in the Facebook universe. It concluded that — just as in “real” life — incessant grumbling and complaining results in losing friends (even virtual ones).

Facebook Smiling = Happy Life?

Not all the news was bad. A fourth study found that “smile intensity” in Facebook photos is a “robust predictor of self-reported life satisfaction 3.5 years later.” (No, I’m not making that up.) The researchers concluded that those who exhibit “a more intense smile in their Facebook photo” had “better social relationships” and reported having better lives than their frownier counterparts.

What Should Employers Do?

Out-of-control use of any social media can hurt employee health, productivity and lots of other things employers should care about. Stay up-to-speed on the latest SM developments, implement a reasonable SM policy (like this one) and train employees on proper use of SM.

Also, SMILE.

Here’s a handy summary from the DOL. Here are FAQs. Here and here are fact sheets.

Here’s what the DOL identified as the major provisions:

• extension of military caregiver leave to eligible family members of recent veterans with a serious injury or illness incurred in the line of duty;
• a flexible, three-part definition for serious injury or illness of a veteran;
• the extension of military caregiver leave to cover serious injuries or illnesses for both current service members and veterans that result from the aggravation during military service of a preexisting condition;
• the extension of qualifying exigency leave to eligible employees with covered family members serving in the Regular Armed Forces;
• inclusion of a foreign deployment requirement for qualifying exigency leave for the deployment of all service members;
• the addition of a special hours of service eligibility requirement for airline flight crew employees; and
• the addition of specific provisions for calculating the amount of FMLA leave used by airline flight crew employees.

The DOL says it will accept public comments on the proposed regs here (although the new rules aren’t loaded into that system quite yet).

The EEOC is seeking public comments on its proposed Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016.

Decision

In a unanimous decision (Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC), the Court for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to discrimination laws.

At stake was whether a religious institution can discriminate in favor of employees aligned with its beliefs. In other words, can a church prefer members of its own denomination and discriminate against atheist candidates in filling a minister position?

The Court’s answer? Yes (in certain circumstances).

Factors

The Court rejected the EEOC’s “extreme position,” which sought to limit the exception to employees who perform “exclusively religious functions.”

While the Court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” it provided a “multi-factor analysis” that looks at “all the circumstances.” Key factors include whether the employee (1) is “held out as a minister,” (2) underwent significant training, (3) was formally commissioned and (4)  performs “important religious functions.”

The Court ruled that the exception may apply even if the clear majority of an employee’s duties are non-religious: “The amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing the employee’s status, but that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed and the other considerations.”

Reasoning

Why did the Court come down on this side of the issue? Here’s what it said: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

For more, check out these fine analyses by SCOTUS and the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.