ABA Journal:  Some workers who beef about the workplace on Facebook and Twitter may be protected from firing or discipline because they are engaging in “protected concerted activity,” according to a report by the National Labor Relations Board.

The report by acting general counsel Lafe Solomon discusses the outcome of investigations into 14 cases involving social media by the agency’s Division of Advice, according to a press release, Above the Law, and Business Ethics. In four cases in the report (PDF), the NLRB found the workers were protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act because they were discussing terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees.

In one case the NLRB sided with a luxury car salesman fired for posting photos of a sales event in which hot dogs were served, cheap food he deemed to be conveying the wrong message to potential clients. His introduction to the photos remarked that he was happy to see that the employer had gone all out for the party. The NLRB said the salesman was vocalizing the concerns of his co-workers, whose salaries were based entirely on commissions.

ABA Journal:  A Manhattan lawyer says he has lost clients because of online posts claiming he is a cheating “scum” who dumped his girlfriends.

Matthew Couloute Jr. is fighting back with a federal lawsuit filed against two ex-girlfriends, including former roller derby queen Stacey Blitsch, the New York Post reports. Couloute, who is now a married man, claims the posts at liarscheatersrus.com have interfered with prospective business relations.

The Volokh Conspiracy:  An interesting decision, stemming from the Wolk v. Olson litigation. Here’s the legal background: A publisher is generally not be liable once the statute of limitations (generally a year or longer) has run since the original publication. At that point, under the “single publication rule” — which is generally accepted in most states, and has generally been applied to the Internet in the cases that have considered the issue — no further lawsuits can be brought based on the original post, even if the publisher eventually learns that the post is false. The mere fact that a blog post is being copied to a reader’s computer each time it’s accessed doesn’t constitute a new publication that restarts the statute of limitations.

But do changes to the post constitute a republication, and restart the statute? Sufficiently substantive changes might, but for modest changes — such as most changes in a URL — the answer is likely no. A few cases have so held, see Canatella v. Van De Kamp (9th Cir. 2007) and In re Davis (W.D. Ky. 2006); the judge in this case suggested that she took a similar view, though she ultimately decided the case on other grounds:

Tax Prof Blog: Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, hasn’t charged sales tax in most states since its founding in 1994. And it has taken some extreme measures to keep it that way.

Among them: Staff traveling around the U.S. have been required to first consult a company map that shades each state red, yellow or green, said three people who have worked for the retailer. These people said they needed permission from managers or company lawyers before entering “red” states because a worker’s actions might trigger laws that force Amazon to collect taxes in those states.

Such steps to avoid local levies allow Amazon to undercut in-state retailers by the amount they must add in sales tax, which can exceed 8%.

A close examination of Amazon’s corporate practices, based on interviews with more than a dozen former employees and people who have done business with the Seattle company, as well as a review of corporate documents, indicates that the company believes its sales-tax policy is critical to its performance.