By: Walter Gonzalez, Esq. and Ty Hyderally, Esq.
September 16, 2026

It took only a few seconds….

A three-pointer. A confident gesture. Cameras caught it from every angle. Within hours, social media was flooded with clips, memes, merchandise concepts, and commentary. Sophie Cunningham[1] had become one of the most talked-about athletes in the country and not because she won a championship that night, but because one moment resonated with millions of people.

Whether you love sports or cannot name a single WNBA player before this summer is beside the point. The real story isn’t basketball. It’s ownership. Not ownership of the shot. Ownership of the moment.

It is well established that the work you do while at work, even if unrelated to your work, can quickly become your employers’.

But more so, in today’s economy, employees are no longer known only by their resumes. They have LinkedIn followings, professional Instagram accounts, podcasts, newsletters, YouTube channels, industry speaking engagements, side businesses, personal websites, social followings, influencer status, etc. Even a thoughtful comment on social media can become part of a professional identity that opens doors to future opportunities.

For many professionals, their personal brand has become one of their most valuable assets.

That raises a surprisingly complicated legal question:

When your reputation becomes valuable, who owns it?

Like most answers in the legal world, the answer is not that simple, it depends.

Some Great News! Your Employer Owns the Job. Not Necessarily You.

Many employees assume that once they leave a company, everything they created goes with them. Conversely, others assume the exact opposite: that anything connected to their employment automatically belongs to the company forever. Neither assumption is entirely correct. Employment relationships create overlapping rights.

An employer generally owns work product created within the scope of employment. Company customer lists, confidential information, internal marketing materials, proprietary software, business strategies, and trade secrets often belong to the employer.[2] Your employer may also require you to sign agreements assigning ownership of inventions, creative works, or intellectual property developed during your employment.

But your name, your experience, your reputation, and your professional relationships are different.  Those belong to you. At least in part. The law has long recognized that individuals possess valuable rights in their own identity.[3]  Today’s digital economy has only made those rights more valuable.

Your LinkedIn Profile Is More Than a Resume

Twenty years ago, leaving a job often meant packing a box and updating your resume.

Today, employees frequently leave with something far more valuable:

• An audience.
• Recruiters follow them.
• Clients know them personally.
• Industry leaders read their posts.
• Conference organizers invite them to speak.

Sometimes the employee, and not the employer, is the brand that customers recognize.  This is a reality that has fundamentally changed the employment relationship.  Wisely companies invest significant resources in building employees into recognizable experts. Those same employees invest years building credibility that may follow them from one employer to the next.

And eventually, those interests collide.

• Can you announce your departure on LinkedIn?
• Can your employer require you to delete followers?
• Can they stop you from discussing projects you worked on?
• Can they prohibit you from using professional relationships you developed while employed?
• What post-employment restrictions are enforceable?

The answer depends less on social media than on employment law.

Read the Contract Before You Read the Comments

When disputes arise, courts generally start with the employment agreement. The courts will look to see if an agreement that the employee and the employer entered into settles these issues.  The court will determine if the contract discusses the issues of ownership and connectivity to the duties the employee performs for the employer. The Court will assess the enforceability of post-employment restrictions such as non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and non-compete agreements. Many employees sign these agreements on their first day of work without appreciating how much they may affect future career opportunities. Those provisions may become critically important years later, particularly if an employee develops a significant public profile.

Technology Has Changed the Conversation About Employee Rights

Technology has also forced employers and lawmakers to confront new questions.

Artificial intelligence now helps screen applicants, evaluate performance, and create content. Employees increasingly contribute ideas, writing, presentations, marketing materials, and digital content that may have significant long-term value, while they independently utilize publicly available Artificial Intelligence that they independently access.

The line between an employee’s individual contributions and an employer’s business assets is becoming harder to identify. That makes understanding employment agreements more important than ever.

A Few Questions Every Employee Should Ask

Before signing an employment agreement, consider asking:

• Who owns work I create during my employment?
• What happens to my LinkedIn account and professional contacts if I leave?
• Are there restrictions on outside writing, speaking, consulting, or content creation?
• Am I assigning ownership of ideas developed outside normal working hours?
• Does the agreement contain non-solicitation, confidentiality, anti-poaching language, or restrictive covenant provisions that could limit future employment?

These aren’t questions that have de minimis impact.  Although it is understandable that employees feel like they have to sign whatever the employer puts in front of them, that feeling is incorrect.  The implications contained in the employment agreement can be significant and employees should consider consulting with legal counsel before they sign such documents.

Your Reputation Is Yours. Protect It Like It Matters.

Sophie Cunningham’s viral moment might eventually fade. Another highlight will replace it. Another athlete will capture the internet’s attention.  But the legal question her story illustrates is here to stay.

Our professional identities have become portable. We carry them from employer to employer, platform to platform, and opportunity to opportunity. They are built through years of hard work, credibility, and relationships.

Employers understandably seek to protect legitimate business interests. Employees deserve to understand which rights they are giving away before signing an employment agreement.

The smartest time to ask who owns your reputation is not after it becomes valuable. It’s before you put your signature on the dotted line.

If you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7459985/2026/07/20/sophie-cunningham-viral-point-wnba-union/

[2] The New Jersey Trade Secrets Act defines a trade secret as information, including business data compilations, programs, methods, techniques, designs, plans, procedures, prototypes, or processes, that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.; 56:15-2

[3] See Canessa v. Kislak, Inc., 235 A.2d 62, 74-75 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1967); Faber v. Condecor, Inc., 477 A.2d 1289, 1292-93 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1984); Castro v. NYT Television, 851 A.2d 88, 97-98 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004).