Our colleague Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to our readers in the technology industry: “April Fools Joke? No. NYC Employers Really Have Two Sets of Training Requirements.”

Following is an excerpt:

Don’t forget – April 1 marks the beginning of a new set of sexual harassment training requirements in New York City. While the training requirement began across New York State on October 9, 2018 (and must be completed by October 9, 2019), the City imposes additional requirements on certain employers. Both laws require training to be provided on an annual basis.

While the State law requires training of all employees, regardless of the number of employees in each state, the City law applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. When counting employees, an employer must count independent contractors who work for the employer. …

Read the full post here.

Washington State is considering sweeping legislation (SB 5376) to govern the security and privacy of personal data similar to the requirements of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Under the proposed legislation, Washington residents will gain comprehensive rights in their personal data. Residents will have the right, subject to certain exceptions, to request that data errors be corrected, to withdraw consent to continued processing and to deletion of their data. Residents may require an organization to confirm whether it is processing their personal information and to receive a copy of their personal data in electronic form.

Covered organizations will be required to provide consumers with a conspicuous privacy notice disclosing the categories of personal data collected or shared with third parties and the consumers’ rights to control use of their personal data. Significantly, covered businesses must conduct documented risk assessments to identify the personal data to be collected and weigh the risks in collection and mitigation of those risks through privacy and cybersecurity safeguards.

Washington’s proposal follows the recent enactment of the California Consumer Privacy Act (see EBG’s Act Now AdvisoryCalifornia’s Consumer Privacy Act What Employer’s Need to Know). Washington’s legislation, however, will grant rights beyond those contained in the California Act and is more closely aligned with the GDPR’s framework. The heightened protections are grounded in the sponsors’ recognition of the detrimental effect of data breaches and the resulting loss of privacy. The Act cites to the GDPR as providing for “the strongest privacy protections in the world” and adopts the GDPR’s expansive definition of “personal data” – any information relating to any identified or identifiable natural person.

Businesses that process the personal data of more than 100,000 Washington residents are covered, as well as “data brokers” that derive 50 percent of their revenue from the brokered sale of personal information. Notably, “data sets” (i.e., Protected Health Information (“PHI”)) regulated by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 are not covered. Financial and health care institutions may need to comply as to other personal data not protected under these statutes. If a health care or financial institution collects or processes other personal data and meets the thresholds above, then it is likely covered.

Employers should take note that data sets maintained only for employment records purposes are excluded. Notably, the Act excludes from coverage “an employee or contractor of a business acting in their role as an employee or contractor.” The Act will impact organizations that use facial recognition technology for profiling consumers with effects on “employment purposes” and “health care services” requiring human review prior to final decisions. Organizations who contract with facial recognition firms may see pass through contractual restrictions prohibiting use for unlawful bias.

There is no private right of action. Enforcement actions may be brought by the Attorney General to obtain injunctive relief and to impose civil penalties. If enacted, the Act, scheduled to become effective December 31, 2020, will have wide-ranging impacts requiring significant advance planning, risk assessments and consideration of privacy and security by design principles.

As we previously reported, since 2017 employees have filed dozens of employment class actions claiming violations of Illinois’ 2008 Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In short, BIPA protects the privacy rights of employees, customers, and others in Illinois against the improper collection, usage, storage, transmission, and destruction of biometric information, including biometric identifiers, such as retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of face or hand geometry. Before collecting such biometric information, BIPA requires an entity to: (1) provide written notice to each individual of the collection; (2) obtain a signed release from each individual for the collection of biometric data; and (3) make available a policy that contains a retention schedule and guidelines for the permanent destruction of the biometric data.

One of the unresolved legal issues was whether an entity’s failure to comply with BIPA’s requirements, absent an actual injury, was sufficient to sustain a claim under that law. On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., holding that mere collection of an individual’s biometric information may be enough to state a claim under BIPA.

In Rosenbach, a parent sued on behalf of her child after he was fingerprinted entering a Six Flags theme park. Neither the parent nor the child signed a release, Six Flags did not provide a written notice provided to the child or the parent, and Six Flags did not have a publicly available policy regarding the retention or destruction of the biometric information. Nonetheless, there have been no known data breaches on Six Flags systems, and the complaint did not allege any other harm to the parent or her son.

The Illinois Supreme Court found that the legislative intent behind BIPA dictated that a technical violation of the law, such as failure to provide notice or obtain a release, is sufficient to state a claim under the Act. Under BIPA, an “aggrieved” party is similar to the concept of the injury-in-fact requirement for standing in federal court. There, the Court found that the “injury is real and significant.”

In light of the Rosenbach decision, it is even more important that employers with operations in Illinois consider taking the following action:

(1)  First, determine if your company collects, uses, stores, or transmits any employee’s (or other individual’s) biometric information or identifiers that may be covered by BIPA (e.g., using fingerprint recognition technology for time keeping purposes or to access a company-issued property or devices).

(2)  If your company does collect, use, store, or transmit biometric data/identifiers, you should:

(a)  develop or review existing, written policies concerning the collection, storage, use, transmission, and destruction of that information, consistent with industry standards;

(b)  implement policies concerning proper notice to employees (and other affected individuals) about the company’s use, storage, etc., of such data and obtain written and signed consent forms from all affected persons; and

(c)  establish practices to protect individuals’ privacy against improper disclosure of biometric data/identifiers, using the methods and standard of care that they would apply to other material deemed confidential and sensitive.

Importantly, providing proper notice includes identifying the specific reason for the collection, storage, and use of the biometric data, as well as how long the employer will use or retain such data. 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/15(a), (b); 14/10.

Our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green have a post on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to our readers in the technology industry: “Mayor de Blasio Proposes Mandatory Paid Personal Time Law.”

On January 9, 2019, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his plan to make New York City the first city in the country to mandate that private sector employers provide paid personal time (“PPT”) for their employees. Under the proposal, employers with five or more employees would be required to grant their employees 10 days of PPT to use for any purpose, including vacation, religious observance, bereavement, or simply to spend time with their families. It is unclear whether the proposed legislation would apply to only full-time workers, or whether, similar to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”), it would include many part-time employees as well. The Mayor said he would work with the New York City Council to develop the legislation, and several Council members have already voiced their support for the proposal. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to our readers in the technology industry: “DOJ Finally Chimes In On State of the Website Accessibility Legal Landscape – But Did Anything Really Change?

Following is an excerpt:

As those of you who have followed my thoughts on the state of the website accessibility legal landscape over the years are well aware, businesses in all industries continue to face an onslaught of demand letters and state and federal court lawsuits (often on multiple occasions, at times in the same jurisdiction) based on the concept that a business’ website is inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. One of the primary reasons for this unfortunate situation is the lack of regulations or other guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which withdrew long-pending private sector website accessibility regulations late last year. Finally, after multiple requests this summer from bi-partisan factions of Members Congress, DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs recently issued a statement clarifying DOJ’s current position on website accessibility. Unfortunately, for those hoping that DOJ’s word would radically alter the playing field and stem the endless tide of litigations, the substance of DOJ’s response makes that highly unlikely.

DOJ’s long-awaited commentary makes two key points…

Read the full post here.

Join Epstein Becker Green attorneys, Brian G. Cesaratto and Brian E. Spang, for a discussion of how employers can best protect their critical technologies and trade secrets from employee and other insider threats. Topics to be discussed include:

  • Determining your biggest threat by using available data
  • What keeps you up at night?
  • Foreseeing the escalation in risk, from insider and cyber threats to critical technologies
  • New protections and remedies under the Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014
  • Where are your trade secrets located, and what existing protections are in place?
  • What types of administrative and technical controls should your firm consider implementing for the key material on your network to protect against an insider threat?
  • What legal requirements may apply under applicable data protection laws?
  • How do you best protect trade secrets and other critical technologies as information increasingly moves into the cloud?
  • Using workforce management and personnel techniques to gain protection
  • The importance of an incident response plan
  • Developing and implementing an effective litigation response strategy to employee theft

Wednesday, October 3, 2018.
12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
Register for this complimentary webinar today!

Our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to our readers in the technology industry: “NYC Commission on Human Rights Issues Guidance on Employers’ Obligations Under the City’s Disability Discrimination Laws.”

Following is an excerpt:

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (“Commission”) recently issued a 146-page guide titled “Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability” (“Guidance”) to educate employers and other covered entities on their responsibilities to job applicants and employees with respect to both preventing disability discrimination and accommodating disabilities. The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) defines “disability discrimination” more broadly than does state or federal disability law, and the Guidance is useful in understanding how the Commission will be interpreting and enforcing the law. …

Read the full post here.

Featured on Employment Law This Week: New Legislation Eases Disclosure Requirements for Startups under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform.

Startups offering equity plans get regulatory relief. The legislation that President Trump signed in May to ease regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act also contained some good news for startups. The law adjusts the Rule 701 thresholds, which allow private companies to offer equity to employees without registering the sales as public offerings.

Watch the segment below.

The European Union’s (“EU’s”) General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) go into effect on May 25, 2018, and they clearly apply to U.S. companies doing business in Europe or offering goods and services online that EU residents can purchase. Given that many U.S. companies, particularly in the health care space, increasingly are establishing operations and commercial relationships outside the United States generally, and in Europe particularly, many may be asking questions akin to the following recent inquiries that I have fielded concerning the reach of the GDPR:

What does the GDPR do? The GDPR unifies European data and privacy protection laws as to companies that collect or process the personally identifiable information (“PII” or, as the GDPR calls it, “personal data”) of European residents (not just citizens).

Who must comply? The GDPR applies to any company that has personal information of EU residents or citizens or that conducts business in the EU, regardless of its home country.

What is the risk of non-compliance? The GDPR mandates documented compliance. The regulations provide for substantial fines of up to €20 million or 4 percent of global revenues for noncompliance. Willful non-compliance is most heavily fined under this tiered system.

How far along are most companies as to compliance? The consulting firm Gartner estimates that more than half of the companies that are subject to the GDPR will not be in compliance throughout this year. They will be at risk.

Who will adopt the regulations? All 28 EU members, plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein (collectively known as the “European Economic Area”), and likely the United Kingdom, will adopt the regulations.

Will the regulations be enforced extraterritorially? The GDPR applies worldwide as to any company that offers goods or services (even if they are free) within the EU or collects, processes, or maintains (anywhere) personal data about European residents (again, not just citizens).

How is “personal data” defined? The definition includes any information as to a human being (called a “data subject”) that can directly or indirectly identify him or her, including, but not limited to, names; birthdates; physical addresses; email and IP addresses; and health, biometric, and demographic information.

What constitutes compliance? In general terms, a subject company must limit the use of the retained personal data and maintain it securely.

  • Explicit consent is required for each processing activity as to any covered datum.
  • Access, free of charge, must be afforded to any data subject on request to a “data controller” (a person at the company charged with maintaining data), who, in turn, must assure that any “data processor” (any person or company that takes data from consumers and manipulates or uses it in some way to then pass along information to a third party) is compliant as to the requested action.
  • Data subjects have the right to be “forgotten, i.e., to have their data expunged, and may revoke consent at will.

What does the GDPR require if there is a data breach? Data breaches that “may” pose a risk to individuals must be notified officially within 72 hours and to affected persons without undue delay.

This, of course, is only an outline of GDPR requirements and procedures. Any specific advice only can be provided knowing an individual company’s circumstances and needs. One does note that, as is the case in other regards, for example, antitrust, the assumptions prevalent within the EU are decidedly different from those in the United States. As a number of commentators have observed, while there is no defined “right of privacy” in the United States, a company is required to preserve information, including PII and personal health information, or PHI, in the event of litigation. In Europe, which has very limited litigation discovery, there is a defined right of privacy and individuals can cause data describing them to be erased (“forgotten”).

Many of you know also that there is a case pending a decision in the Supreme Court of the United States involving whether the U.S. government can compel Microsoft to produce PII that is collected and stored outside of the United States. An affirmative decision might create a conflict of law that will complicate the data retention abilities of American companies doing business overseas. So stay tuned.

Our colleague Daniel R. Levy, at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility blog that will be of interest to our readers: “It’s a Brave New World: Protecting Trade Secrets When Traveling Abroad with Electronic Devices.

Following is an excerpt:

Consider the following scenario: your organization holds an annual meeting with all Research & Development employees for the purpose of having an open discussion between thought leaders and R&D regarding product-development capabilities. This year’s meeting is scheduled outside the United States and next year’s will be within the U.S. with all non-U.S. R&D employees traveling into the U.S. to attend. For each meeting, your employees may be subject to a search of their electronic devices, including any laptop that may contain your company’s trade secrets. Pursuant to a new directive issued in January 2018 by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection (“CBP”), the electronic devices of all individuals, including U.S. citizens and U.S. residents, may be subject to search upon entry into (or leaving) the U.S. by the CBP. …

Read the full post here.