Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Data Security, HIPAA & Confidentiality Issues

Numerous companies are considering, or already transitioned to, a "bring your own device" (BYOD) model.  Under a BYOD program, employees are permitted to connect their own personal devices (iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, PDA, etc.) to the employer's networks and systems to complete job duties either in the office or working remotely.  While a BYOD program has numerous benefits, there are also a number of issues which should be considered.

The BYOD Issues Outline below highlights key issues and policy considerations for companies considering moving to, or continuing, a BYOD program. 

*Jackson Lewis' Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Issues Outline*

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In addition to limiting employers' access to the online accounts of employees and applicants, effective July 1, 2013, Colorado becomes the ninth state to restrict an employer’s right to obtain and use credit information for making employment decisions. Colorado joins California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Under Colorado’s new law, a covered employer cannot require an employee to consent to a background check containing credit information unless: (1) the employer is a bank or financial institution; (2) the report is required by law; or (3) the report is “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job,” and the employer has a bona fide purpose for such information, and this information is disclosed in writing to the employee. Further, such information can be used only if it is “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.”

The statute provides that the phrase, “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job,” means the information in the credit report is related to the position for which the subject is being evaluated, because the position is one for executive or management level personnel or officers,  or employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel, and the position involves one or more of the following:

• Setting the direction or control of a business, division, unit, or an agency of the business;
• A fiduciary responsibility to the employer;
• Access to customers, employees, or the employer’s personal or financial information, other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction;
• The authority to issue payments, collect debts, or enter into contracts; or
• Involves contracts with defense, intelligence, national security, or space agencies of the federal government.

More information about the law can be accessed here, or at the link above. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this year, we posted about new laws in Utah and New Mexico that limit employers' ability to access the online accounts of their employees. Since then, Washington and Colorado have joined these and other states, such as Maryland, Illinois, California, Michigan, that have enacted similar laws. Oregon and New Jersey appear to be not far behind regulating employers in this area. 

Increasingly, employers across the country will need to revisit some of the hiring and monitoring practices they may be following, in particular, those of lower level managers and supervisors who may not be aware of these developments. Companies also need to reconsider what role they want employees to play in the businesses' marketing strategies in social media.  

Colorado. Governor John Hickenlooper signed HB 13-1046 into law on May 11, 2013. Under the new law, employers may not "suggest, request or require" or cause employees or applicants to (i) disclose the means of accessing the employees or applicants' personal account or service through the employees or applicants' electronic communication device, or (ii) change their privacy settings for an associated social networking account. An employer also may not compel an employee or applicant to become a friend, contact or connection of the employer or the employer's agent. Employers may not fail or refuse to hire applicants, or discipline or otherwise penalize employees, who refuse to provide access to their personal accounts or add the employers to their contacts.

The good news for employers is that the law does not prohibit them from requiring employees to provide access, including user name and password, to non-personal accounts or services that allow access to employers' information systems. The law also does not prohibit certain employers (those in certain industries (e.g., securities, finance) who have to comply with certain regulatory requirements) from conducting investigations concerning the use of personal websites, web-based accounts or similar accounts by an employee for business purposes. The same is true for investigations involving the unauthorized downloading of employer proprietary or financial information to a personal website, web-based account or similar account.

The new Colorado law does not provide for a private right of action, but injured persons may file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment, which may impose fines of up to $1,000 for a first offense, and not more than $5,000 for subsequent offenses.   

Washington. Gov. Jay Inslee signed a similar law (SB 5211) on May 21, 2013, that contains restrictions on employers concerning the personal online accounts of their employees. The law also contains similar exceptions concerning employee investigations. The law becomes effective on July 28, 2013. 

Oregon. Last week, the Oregon legislature sent HB 2654 to the Governor's desk for signature. Like the two measures above, the law would prohibit employers from requiring or requesting access to the personal social media accounts of employees or applicants, as well as prohibiting employers from requiring employees or applicants to make the employer a contact or connection of the employer. Unlike the laws discussed above, the current version of the bill does not include an investigation exception.

New Jersey. Responding to Governor Chris Christie's concerns about a prior version of the bill (such as objecting to a provision that would have made it illegal to ask an employee if he or she has a Facebook account), the New Jersey General Assembly recently approved unanimously modifications to A2878, making it virtually certain to become law in New Jersey in the short term. The Governor has already signed a similar law protecting access to the social media accounts of university students and applicants.

Similar to the laws described above, A2878 would prohibit employers from requiring or requesting employees or applicants to disclose login information for their personal social media accounts. The law also proscribes retaliating or discriminating against any employee or applicant who fails to provide such information, reports a violation of the law, participates in an investigation or otherwise opposes a violation of the law. However, the new version of the law no longer provides for a private right of action, but civil penalties can be imposed for violations - up to $1,000 for the first violation,  $2,500 for each subsequent violation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California expanded the tort of "public disclosure of private facts" under that state's common law right to privacy in a case involving a claim by an employee against her supervisor and employer. Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. et al, No. G046434, (Cal. Ct. App. March 18, 2013). The plaintiff in that case suffered from bi-polar disorder and occasionally missed work due to the side effects of medication adjustments.  After returning from such an absence, the plaintiff alleged that her supervisor had informed everyone in her department about her medical condition and that, as a result, she was "shunned" and a co-worker asked if she was going to "go postal."  The plaintiff filed suit alleging a single cause of action for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. The trial court dismissed her claim on summary judgment because the disclosure of her condition was not in writing, relying on California case law from the early 1930's.

On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, concluding that "limiting liability for public disclosure of private facts to those recorded in writing is contrary to the tort's purpose, which has been since its inception to allow a person to control the kind of information about himself made available to the public - in essence to define his public persona."  The court went on to note that, "[w]hile this restriction may have made sense in the 1890's - when no one dreamed of talk radio or confessional television - it certainly makes no sense now."

The court also clarified that the common law tort of invasion of privacy was not based on the guarantee of privacy which was added to the California Constitution in 1972 and noted that the two legal theories (common law and the State Constitution) provide "separate, albeit related ways to ensure privacy."

Different states have interpreted the common law right of privacy in the workplace in different ways. In Minnesota, for example, a district court rejected a lawsuit by an employee who claimed that her employer violated her right to privacy when it informed approximately 12 to 15 individuals that she suffered from multiple sclerosis. That court determined that because the disclosure was not "accessible to the public at large," it did not qualify as public in nature for purposes of maintaining an invasion of privacy claim. Johnson v. Cambell Mithun, 401 F. Supp.2d 964 (Minn. 2005).

If an employee is out on medical leave or requires an accommodation, employers may be asked what information, if any, can be disclosed to co-workers and supervisors about that employee's medical condition, and the reason for her leave or accommodation. HIPAA is probably not implicated in such situations because most employers are not covered entities in this context. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), however, require employers to maintain confidentiality of medical information. See 29 C.F.R. Section 1630.14(c) (relating to ADA) and 29 C.F.R. Section 825.500 (relating to FMLA).

Employees asserting a common law claim for invasion of privacy against their employer based on the disclosure of medical information have not often been successful, but Ignat suggests the tide may be changing. The best practice is to reveal as little as possible to those with a need to know.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Shortly after Utah inked its own law, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez signed S371 into law on April 5, 2013. Similar to the provisions in other states (such as, California, Illinois, Maryland and Michigan), S371 makes it illegal for employers to request or require applicants to provide a password, or demand access in any manner, to an applicant's social media account or profile. Unlike some of the laws in other states, the New Mexico statute appears to apply only to prospective employees, but not current employees.

Additionally, S371 makes clear that certain activities by employers are not affected by the law, namely:

• having electronic communication policies in the workplace addressing internet use, social networking activity and email,
• monitoring use of the employer’s information systems and networks,
• using information that is publicly available on the Internet, although as noted in prior posts there may be other risks to employers engaging in these activities, such as under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following a handful of other states (such as, California, Illinois, Maryland and Michigan), a new Utah labor law places limits on employers' ability to access the "personal Internet accounts" of employees and applicants. Gov. Gary R. Herbert signed the state's "Internet Employment Privacy Act" (IEPA) on March 26, 2013, together with the "Internet Postsecondary Institution Privacy Act" applying similar restrictions on postsecondary institutions with respect to their students and prospective students. 

The IEPA prohibits an employer from asking an employee or applicant to disclose the username and password that allows access to his or her "personal Internet account," as well as taking adverse action against the individual for failing to do so. There are some qualifications and exceptions, however.

First, "personal Internet accounts" are defined to mean online accounts that are used by an
employee or applicant "exclusively for personal communications unrelated to any business
purpose of the employer." In fact, the statute specifically excludes accounts that are "created, maintained, used, or accessed by an employee or applicant for business related communications or for a business purpose of the employer." Of course, employees frequently use their personal online accounts for business purposes, so it is unclear how widespread the protections under this new law will be.

Consider that most employees' LinkedIn or Facebook accounts likely include some business contacts for their current employer, setting up the argument that the account is maintained or used for a business purpose of the employer. Perhaps the practical effect of the law will be to provide greater protection for applicants who seem less likely to have online personal accounts created, maintained, used or accessed for a business purpose of the employer. 

Second, the IEPA sets out some specific exceptions, such as:

• Employers may request or require employees to provide their usernames and passwords to enable the employer to access company-issued (or paid for, in whole or in part) smartphones and other devices, as well as online accounts provided by the employer.
• Employers may discipline employees for making unauthorized transfers of proprietary or confidential company information or financial data to the employee's personal Internet account.
• Employers also may conduct and require employees to cooperate with certain investigations (such as concerning compliance or work-related employee misconduct) when there is specific information about related activity on the employee's personal Internet account.
• Perhaps to address the concerns of those employers who have adopted "BYOD" programs, the law does not prohibit the "monitoring, reviewing, accessing, or blocking electronic data stored on an electronic communications device supplied by, or paid for in whole or in part by, the employer, or stored on an employer's network, in accordance with state and federal law."
• Employers also are not prohibited under the law from viewing, accessing, or using information that is publicly available on the Internet, although there may be other risks to employers engaging in these activities, such as under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Employees and applicants may sue employers for violating this law, but damages are limited to $500 per violation.

This development only highlights the increasing regulation of employee (and applicant) privacy in cyberspace, particularly for multi-state employers where the laws vary significantly. Employers need to keep on top of these developments, and ensure their managers and supervisors have been trained so they know their limitations in attracting, managing and disciplining employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, President Obama signed an executive order on Feb. 12, 2013, the same date that he delivered the State of the Union address. The executive order directs certain federal agencies to develop voluntary standards for achieving cybersecurity, an effort to be led, in part, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a component of the Commerce Department.

Citing national security concerns, the President's order seeks cooperation and collaboration with the private sector. It is unclear at this point how far the "voluntary" standards will reach, or how much the President can force compliance absent Congressional action. However, once in place, companies may feel compelled to comply in order to remain competitive and to ensure a stronger defensible position in litigation involving lapses in security of critical data. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Linking his announcement to National Privacy Day, January 28, 2013, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler informed the public that his office has formed an Internet Privacy Unit. (See similar step taken by Connecticut AG)

The stated purpose of the Unit is to protect the privacy of online users. The Unit will be charged with "monitor[ing] companies to ensure they are in compliance with state and federal consumer protection laws." In addition, the Unit will "examine weaknesses in online privacy policies" and help to create awareness about privacy rights. Of course, the Unit also will pursue enforcement actions to ensure consumer protection.

As in other states, such as Massachusetts and California, Maryland has a Personal Information Protection Act.  The Act provides, in part:

To protect personal information from unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure, a business that owns or licenses personal information of an individual residing in the State shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices that are appropriate to the nature of the personal information owned or licensed and the nature and size of the business and its operations.

Md. Code Ann. Comm. Section 14-3503. The Attorney General's Office has published some guidance about the data breach provisions of the law.

Maryland businesses and businesses which maintain personal information about Maryland residents should review their online privacy statements, as well as the policies and procedures for safeguarding personal information. In his press release, Attorney General Gansler acknowledged "the emergence and evolution of the Digital Age has created new and significant privacy risks for both consumers and businesses." Businesses need to be prepared to address these risks and defend against enforcement activities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As we continue to examine the final HIPAA privacy and security regulations, as amended by the HITECH Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, we pulled together a summary of some of the key points. We fully expect additional sub-regulatory guidance to be provided by OCR, such as frequently asked questions and sample business associate agreement provisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Prepared by Jason Gavejian and Joseph Lazzarotti

In honor of National Data Privacy Day, we have laid out 13 key issues affecting businesses in 2013. While the list is by no means exhaustive, it does provide critical areas businesses will need to consider in 2013.

1. BYOD. As advancements in technology continue at a breakneck pace, many businesses are confronted with the idea of implementing a Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) program. Under these programs, employees are permitted to connect their own personal devices to the company’s networks and systems to complete job tasks either in the office or working remotely. While BYOD programs have advantages, they also have associated risks. Developing a thorough implementation strategy with appropriate policies is critical.
2. Bans On Requesting Social Media Passwords. As we have previously discussed  fourteen states introduced legislation in 2012 which would prohibit employers from requiring current, or prospective, employees to disclose a user name or password for a personal social media account. Six states have passed and/or enacted such legislation and it is anticipated that other states will pass similar measures in 2013.
3. Final HIPAA Regulations. On January 17, 2012, the Office for Civil Rights released final privacy and security regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. In addition to incorporating the HITECH Act which, among other things, expands the application of the rules to business associates, the final rules also apply the rules to subcontractors and remove the risk of harm trigger for data breaches affecting unsecured protected health information.
4. Disaster Recovery Plans. Hurricane Sandy caused extensive damage on the east coast in 2012, greatly affecting not only personal residences, but many businesses up and down the coast. Unfortunately, protecting information and technology assets from natural disasters and other emergencies is often an afterthought. However, developing a comprehensive disaster recovery plan now can avoid the significant expense, and often irretrievable loss of data, associated with natural disasters.
5. Develop a Plan for Responding to a Breach Notification. All state and federal data breach notification requirements currently in effect require notice be provided as soon as possible. Delays in notification viewed as unreasonable could trigger an inquiry by the state’s Attorney General, or in the case of HIPAA protected health information, the Office of Civil Rights. This is true even when the number of individuals affected is relatively small.
6. Investigating Social Media. As the use of social media continues to grow throughout the world, it is only natural that social media content is being sought to aid in litigation. While public content may generally be utilized without issue, if private content is accessed improperly, serious repercussions can follow. This is especially true for attorneys and their staff who attempt to aid their clients by accessing social media content.
7. International Data Protection. More and more company information is being stored in electronic format and shared with various corporate divisions through company intranets or email. While U.S. law requires some safeguarding of this information, international protections on personal information can be much more stringent. When the transfer of data across international borders is possible, or actively occurring, companies should be advised on the potential risks and requirements associated with same.
8. Develop a Written Information Security Program. Even if adopting a written information security program (WISP) to protect personal information is not an express statutory or regulatory mandate in your state, having one is critical to addressing information risk. Not only will a WISP better position a company when defending claims related to a data breach, but it will help the company manage and safeguard critical information, and may even help the company avoid whistleblower claims from employees. For some companies, a WISP can be a competitive advantage. Of course, in states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, Connecticut and others, a WISP in one form or another is required.
9. Risk Assessment. Many businesses remain unaware of how much personal and confidential information they maintain, who has access to it, how it is used and disclosed, how it is safeguarded, and so on. Getting a handle on a business' critical information assets must be the first step, and is perhaps the most important step to tackling information risk. You simply can’t adequately safeguard something you are not aware exists. And failing to conduct a risk assessment may subject the business to penalties under federal and/or state law.
10. Insurance. Like many other risks, information risk can be addressed in part through insurance. More carriers are developing products dealing with personal information risk, and specifically data breach response. This kind of coverage should be a part of any CIO, privacy officer or risk manager’s toolkit for safeguarding information.
11. Training. A necessary component of any WISP and a required element under most federal and state laws mandating data security is training. In addition to meeting compliance requirements, training employees and supervisors also will aid in defending any potential breach of privacy claim that may be asserted against the company.
12. Carefully Integrate New Technologies. As businesses look for new technologies to increase productivity, cut costs, and gain a competitive advantage, how those technologies address information risk must be a factor in the decision to adopt.
13. Watch for New Legislation. Today, managing data and ensuring its privacy, security and integrity is critical for businesses and individuals, and is increasingly becoming the subject of broad, complex regulation. As no national law requiring the protection of personal information has yet to be passed in the U.S., companies are left to navigate the constantly evolving web of growing state legislation. Companies therefore need to stay tuned in order to continue to remain compliant and competitive in this regard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In 2012, California took significant steps to increase privacy protections for users of mobile applications (apps) which involved working with companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft. In July 2012, the Attorney General created the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit, with the mission of protecting the inalienable right to privacy conferred by the California Constitution.

These efforts led to the "Privacy on the Go" booklet published this month which sets out a range of helpful recommendations for app developers. Of course, many of the same principles discussed in this booklet would be helpful to any organization seeking to secure personal information. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The $50,000 in penalties that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently imposed on a health care provider in Idaho was due in part to allegations that the HIPAA covered entity had not conducted a risk assessment as required under the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. Of course, HIPAA is not the only law that requires a risk assessment. State laws, such as the Massachusetts data security regulations, contemplate and require a risk assessment in order to establish reasonable safeguards for personal information.

In short, this process involves examining what information the organization maintains, the nature of that information, how it moves through the organization and to/from its vendors, and the organization's current set of safeguards in order to determine the vulnerabilities to that information in terms of privacy, security, accessibility and integrity. This process is critical to ensuring that privacy and security policies are appropriate for the organization. There are a number of resources to assist you in getting started - here are a couple:

• High level risk assessment power point
• HHS guidance concerning risk assessments under HIPAA 

Organizations that have performed risk assessements need to periodically re-evaluate their prior efforts based on changes in their business. So, whether your organization has not conducted a risk assessment, or it has been a few years since your last assessment, or there have been substantial changes in your business, this may be as good a time as any to make this a priority.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Written by Jason Gavejian

One of the hottest topics throughout 2012 was the various states which passed, or enacted, legislation which prohibits employers from requiring current, or prospective, employees to disclose a user name or password for a personal social media account, such as Facebook or LinkedIn. In fact, this issue was recently featured in an article on nbcnews.com.   

Notably, fourteen states introduced such legislation in 2012, with Michigan becoming the most recent state to enact such legislation when Governor Rick Snyder signed his state’s equivalent law (HB 5523) last Friday. As we have discussed, California, Delaware (dealing with students at colleges and universities), Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey (pending Governor's signature) also enacted laws on this issue in 2012.

We anticipate that other states will address this issue through legislation in 2013 and beyond. It is essential for businesses to be conscious of these new laws, and to carefully consider this issue whether or not the state in which they operate currently prohibits such conduct.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law (AB 2674) new requirements specifying when and how employers must respond to their employees’ requests for inspection and copying of their personnel files. The new requirements become effective January 1, 2013.

Click here for more information about the new law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Late last week, California Governor Jerry Brown "took to Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn and MySpace to announce that he has signed two bills that increase privacy protections for social media users in California."

As discussed, one of the bills, A.B. 1844, updates California's Labor Code to significantly limit when employers could ask employees and job applicants for social media passwords and account information. However, the law permit employers to request an employee to divulge personal social media activity reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or employee violation of applicable laws and regulations. This exception  applies so long as the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding.

The other bill, S.B. 1349, establishes a similar privacy policy for postsecondary education students with respect to their use of social media. While the bill prohibits public and private institutions from requiring students, prospective students and student groups to disclose user names, passwords or other information about their use of social media, it stipulates that this prohibition does not affect the institution’s right to investigate or punish student misconduct

The new laws take effect Jan. 1, 2013.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

To help businesses comply with amendments to Connecticut's data breach notification law, which becomes effective October 1, 2012, CT Attorney General George Jepsen's Privacy Task Force has made an email address - ag.breach@ct.gov - available to facilitate breach reporting, reports Hartford Business.com.

According to the AG's press release, a Web page detailing the new law’s requirements will go live on the AG's Website when the amendment goes into effect. The key change made by the amendment is that persons, including businesses, required to notify residents of the Nutmeg State of a security breach must also notify the Attorney General's office within the same time frame. The email address and informational website should facilitate the breach reporting process in Connecticut.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Updating an earlier post, California A.B. 1844 is on its way to Gov. Jerry Brown. If signed into law, the bill would update California's Labor Code to significantly limit when employers could ask employees and job applicants for social media passwords and account information. However, the law would still permit employers to request an employee to divulge personal social media reasonably believed to be relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or employee violation of applicable laws and regulations. This exception would apply so long as the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding.

If A.B. 1844 becomes law, it would join Maryland and Illinois which have enacted similar laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the consequences faced by companies that neglect workplace privacy issues is the possibility of a defamation lawsuit. Human resources departments should be careful to limit information about employees and former employees, including the reasons for a termination or leave of absence, to those with a need to know. References and requests for references should be treated carefully lest a provably false statement lead to the loss of a job and result in litigation. Carefully crafted social media policies can also help mitigate the possibility of one employee smearing another on the Internet. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests the use of email and social media is increasing the potential for defamation claims arising out of the workplace. Never before has it been so easy to have a career ruined so publicly and so quickly. High unemployment has also raised the stakes for litigation involving one's professional reputation. Many litigants decide to sue after they are unsuccessful finding a new job and feel they have no other choice.

Here is a link to an article I wrote for Bench & Bar magazine about Workplace Defamation Claims in Minnesota. Most of the concepts are applicable in other states as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Washington Post reported on Governor Pat Quinn's signing of HB 3782 on August 1, 2012, at the Illinois Institute of Technology, making Illinois the second state following Maryland to prohibit employers from asking employees or applicants for their Facebook and other social media passwords. The law becomes effective January 1, 2013.

As we reported, HB 3782 amends the State's Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act to make it illegal for employers to ask potential and current employees for their social media passwords:

It shall be unlawful for any employer to request or require any employee or prospective employee to provide any password or other related account information in order to gain access to the employee's or prospective employee's account or profile on a social networking website or to demand access in any manner to an employee's or prospective employee's account or profile on a social networking website.

However, the law would not limit an employer's right to:

• have policies to regulate employees' use of the employer's electronic equipment, Internet use, social networking site use, and electronic mail use; or
• monitor the employee's use of the employer's electronic equipment and the employer's electronic mail.

The law also would not prohibit employers from reviewing information about employees or applicants that is in the public domain, so long as the employer complies with other applicable law. Of course, even information in the public domain can have traps for the unwary employer, such as learning about an applicant's family medical history on his or her Facebook site which would raise issues under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Effective July 1, 2012, Vermont joins California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington as jurisdictions that restrict an employer’s right to obtain and use credit information for making employment decisions.  Similar legislation is pending in many other jurisdictions. Click here for more information about the Vermont law. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ECRI Institute recently published an excellent summary of key issues for hospitals concerning social media (registration required), a valuable read for any hospital administrator, risk manager or human resources director. ECRI reports that approximately 4,000 U.S. hospitals own social media sites and that number is sure to grow significantly. One of the reasons for this growth will likely be due in significant part to the increasing number of people looking to social media to research health decisions. According to a National Research Corporation survey cited in the summary, 41% of nearly 23,000 respondents said that they used social media for this purpose.

The summary discusses critical areas for healthcare organizations to consider concerning social media, which can be applied to most other industries:

• Understand the medium - what is social media, what are the different venues (Facebook, LinkedIn, FourSquare etc.), what is the competition doing, what new media is coming.
• Determine desired uses - promotion of services/sales, recruiting, reputation management, community involvement, education, and so on. 
• Assess risks - privacy, network security, employment, reputation, regulatory, malpractice, and protecting the brand.
• Develop policies and procedures - control company message and regulate employee activity.
• Implement and train and reevaluate - limit the number of employees who can speak for the organization, train employees on legal risks (such as with HR looking up applicant/employee background information on line), determine whether social media plan is producing desired results

Businesses in all industries are "going social," and should be developing a comprehensive plan before doing so. The ECRI summary provides a good starting point for thinking through some of the issues, particularly for those in healthcare.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An invasion-of-privacy claim against an insurance agent brought by his former employee should proceed even where a surveillance camera placed by the agent in the workplace’s unisex bathroom was faulty, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled. Koeppel v. Speirs, No. 08-1927.

The district court dismissed the invasion-of-privacy claim on summary judgment because there was no proof that the equipment was operational or that the employer had actually viewed any recordings of the employees. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, and on December 23, 2011, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the reversal and remanded the employee’s common law privacy claim to the district court.

The issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether an actual "viewing" was a necessary element of an invasion-of-privacy claim involving hidden monitoring equipment. Courts in other states have split on the issue. After analyzing decisions from other states and law review articles on privacy law as well as the origin of the term, "peeping Tom," the Iowa Supreme Court held that an actual viewing was not required. Following the reasoning of a 1964 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, it concluded an intrusion occurs when the defendant performs an act that has the "potential to impair a person's state of mind and comfort associated with the expectation of privacy."

The Iowa Supreme Court said, "[W]e think it is important to keep in mind that the tort [of invasion of privacy] protects against acts that interfere with a person's mental well-being by intentionally exposing the person in an area cloaked with privacy." It determined that “[a]n electronic invasion occurs under the intrusion on solitude or seclusion component of the tort of invasion of privacy when the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the electronic device or equipment used by a defendant could have invaded privacy in some way.” Thus, under Koeppel, a victim's mental state can be more important to an invasion of privacy claim than what the defendant actually viewed, accessed, or shared. (The employee here also sued for sexual harassment, but that claim was dismissed because an employer with fewer than four employees is not liable for sexual harassment under Iowa law.)

An invasion-of-privacy claim in Iowa, therefore, need not include a showing that the monitoring device was functioning at the time it was discovered or that it was ever used. It is sufficient that the device was capable of functioning.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A U.S. District Court in Indiana has ruled that a company's use of keylogger software to access an employee's personal e-mail account may have violated the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”).  

Keylogging or keystroke logging is the tracking of the keys struck on a keyboard, typically in a covert manner.  

In Rene v. G.F. Fishers, Inc.,the company utilized keylogger software and was sued by one of its employees for violations of the SCA, the Indiana Wiretap Act (“IWA”), and the Federal Wiretap Act.  The company generally prohibited personal use of its computers, however, it permitted the employee to access her personal checking account and personal e-mail account from the company computer.  The employee was later notified that the company had installed keylogger software on the computer.  Utilizing the keylogger software, the company accessed the employee’s personal e-mail account and personal checking account (acquiring the passwords utilizing the keylogger software), and reviewed and discussed the messages and contents. 

The employee was fired for “poor performance” after complaining about the access. She sued her former employer, alleging the company violated the SCA, IWA, and the Federal Wiretap Act.  While the court did not address certain factual issues under the SCA (e.g., whether the company accessed the employee’s e-mail messages before the employee opened them), it held that by alleging that the employer accessed her e-mail messages the employee had satisfied the burden of asserting a violation of the SCA.  The court also denied the company’s motion to dismiss the former employee’s IWA claim, but it did dismiss the Federal Wiretap Act claim. 

As we have previously discussed, jurisdictions are at odds over the use of keylogger software in the employment context.  Employers should carefully consider their use of keylogger or monitoring technology and consult counsel as to best practices for the jurisdiction in which you are located.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found the confidentiality rights of patients outweighed a plaintiff’s need to take discovery of patient medical records in Kapp v. Jewish Hospital, Inc.  Plaintiff, a former nurse, brought suit in the federal court in Ohio, alleging she was terminated in violation of federal employment discrimination laws.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged defendant had alternative motives for plaintiff’s termination, including plaintiff’s age, perceived disability, and plaintiff’s request for FMLA leave.  To establish her case, plaintiff sought to ascertain through the discovery process, whether other similarly situated nurses, were treated in a like manner.  To do so, plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking access to non-party patient records in an attempt to discern if other nurses participated in essentially the same conduct for which defendant terminated plaintiff, but were not themselves terminated.  The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and held that Ohio's strict physician-patient privilege law applied to prevent production of the records.  The plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, and those objections were heard by the District Court Judge.  The District Court Judge held that “[a]lthough state privilege law does not control…there are abundant and adequate federal principals that protect patient confidentiality.”  The Court went on to state,

the non-party patients’ right to confidentiality outweighs the plaintiff’s proffered justification for accessing the non-party patient medical records. 

The Court went on to say that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act expresses a general federal policy favoring patients' right to confidentiality and HIPAA's Privacy Rule grants federal protections for patients' personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients rights regarding that information. In this case, the plaintiff had other, less-intrusive options for discovering whether the hospital treated similarly situated nurses differently, including, for example, narrowing the scope of the request by deposing other nurses who had worked with the physician in question, the hospital's human resources personnel, or other nurse supervisors.

The broad discovery sought by plaintiff in this matter is not an uncommon approach taken by the plaintiff’s bar in an effort to prove the merits of their client’s claims.  Employers, especially those in the healthcare industry, must be aware of opinions like Kapp in their efforts to limit plaintiff’s unfounded discovery requests and to protect their patients’ privacy.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Connecticut joins five other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland) in limiting what credit report information employers may use in making hiring or employment decisions. Other states have considered similar measures.

Under the new law, effective October 1, 2011, employers (including their agents, representatives or designees) may not demand that an employee or prospective employee consent to a credit report as a condition of employment unless:

1. the employer is a financial institution, 
2. the credit report is required by law,
3. the employer reasonably believes that the employee has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation of the law related to the employee's employment, or
4. such report is "substantially related to the employee's current or potential job" or the employer has a bona fide purpose for requesting or using information in the credit report that is substantially job-related and is disclosed in writing to the employee or applicant.

For purposes of this law, a credit report is a report that contains information about the employee's or prospective employee's credit score, credit account balances, payment history, savings or checking account balances or savings or checking account numbers. The report will be treated as being "substantially related to the employee's current or potential job," where the position:

• is a managerial position which involves setting the direction or control of a business, division, unit or an agency of a business,
• involves access to customers', employees' or the employer's personal or financial information other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction,
• involves a fiduciary responsibility to the employer, including, but not limited to, the authority to issue payments, collect debts, transfer money or enter into contracts,
• provides an expense account or corporate debit or credit card,
• provides access to certain confidential or proprietary business information, including trade secret information under certain circumstances; or
• involves access to the employer's nonfinancial assets valued at $2,005 or more, including, but not limited to, museum and library collections and to prescription drugs and other pharmaceuticals.

Employees or prospective employees who believe the law has been violated may file a complaint. Employers could be liable for $300 in civil penalties for each inquiry that violates the law.

In addition to affecting the traditional employee-employer relationship, this law (and those cited above) may affect the practice of requiring employees of a company's vendors to jump through certain hoops before coming on-site. Increasingly, company A, when it utilizes the services of employees of company B (such as for back office processing or health care staffing needs) will require company B to ensure its employees undergo certain background checks and other certification procedures and tests. Those arrangements need to consider these limitations on the kinds of inquiries that can be made by employers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

. . . A Potential Headache for Employers of Younger Workers

Written by Lillian Moon

Retail, entertainment, hospitality and other industries that traditionally employ large numbers of younger workers may soon get dragged into criminal proceedings because of “sexting” by their younger workers. Florida has joined 20 other states — Alaska, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Guam — which have all enacted similar legislation addressing teen sexting. Because employees frequently transmit these materials using their employer’s networks, criminal prosecutions under these laws may require employers to respond to discovery requests and subpoenas, or permit searches pursuant to warrants obtained by law enforcement authorities, which, in turn, may unexpectedly trigger disciplinary proceedings.

On June 21, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law H.B.75/S.B. 888. Under this law, which will take effect beginning October 1, 2011, a minor (anyone under the age of 18) commits the criminal act of “sexting” if he or she knowingly uses a computer, cell phone, or other transmission device (1) to transmit or distribute to another minor a photograph or video of any person which depicts nudity; or (2) possesses such photograph or video which was transmitted or distributed by another minor, unless the photograph was unsolicited, the minor took reasonable steps to report the photograph or video to their legal guardian, school official, or law enforcement, and the minor did not transmit or distribute the video or photograph to a third party. A minor’s first offense is considered noncriminal and is punishable by 8 hours or community service or a $60 fine. The minor’s second offense is a misdemeanor in the first degree, punishable with imprisonment not to exceed one year or a $1,000 fine; and the minor’s third offense is a felony of third degree, punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine.

Of course, sexting is not only an issue for minors. It is fast becoming an easy and well-utilized mechanism for sexual and other workplace harassment. Accordingly, employers should review and update their anti-harassment policies to include a prohibition of harassment via e-mail, text messaging, or use of social networking sites; and they should review their electronic communications policies to include a prohibition against using any employer-provided electronic device to transmit or retain any sexually suggestive or explicit pictures, texts, videos or any other derogatory material regarding race, ethnicity, age, disability, religion, or any other protected category. Employers should also educate and train employees on the revised policies and continue to enforce all policies in a fair and consistent manner. At the same time, employers should remain mindful of any limitations on such policies (as written or as applied) that may be imposed under the National Labor Relations Act.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Disclosure to management by the company’s in-house physician of an employee’s alleged “lie” (or at least significant omission) made months earlier on a post-job offer medical questionnaire violated the Americans with Disabilities Act’s confidentiality provisions, a federal District Court in Maine held last week. Blanco v. Bath Iron Works Corp., D. Me., No. 2:10-cv-00429.

Medical professionals are becoming a fixture at many workplaces, whether they be occupational nurses or full scale on-site health clinics. As reported by the L.A. Times on July 3, 2011, 15% of U.S. companies with 500 or more employees had health centers last year, up from 11% the year before, and companies with 20,000 or more employees were even more likely to have clinics. However, having these resources on site can raise a range of workplace law risks, not the least of which concerns confidentiality.

In the Maine case, following his job offer, Mr. Blanco completed a pre-placement medical screening, which included filling out and signing a “Medical Surveillance History Questionnaire,” administered by the employer’s in-house physician. He did not reveal on that form that he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Mr. Blanco received good reviews for the first few months of his employment, but when he was moved to a different position, his performance began to wane. During a meeting with his manager, he attributed his poor performance to his ADHD and not long after requested a reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Blanco was referred to the same in-house physician who administered the Medical Surveillance History Questionnaire. Rather than explore the substance of his request, the physician interrogated Mr. Blanco concerning the ADHD omission on the Questionnaire. He explained that he did not understand the questions to ask about mental or emotional issues, such as ADHD. The physician refused to provide an accommodation, or even address the issue, and shortly after the physician informed management of Mr. Blanco’s omission from the Questionnaire, he was fired.

In refusing to dismiss Mr. Blanco’s complaint under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the state anti-discrimination law, the Court rejected two interesting arguments raised by the employer:

1. Employees that lie should not be able to get protection under the ADA’s medical information confidentiality protections; and,
2. As a policy matter, these kind of misstatements put in-house physicians “in a pickle.” The court allowed, “If the revealed condition places the employee and his co-workers at risk, the doctor’s conflicting loyalty would become a safety issue."

In each case, however, the Court said it didn’t matter to its decision that the employee may have lied on the medical questionnaire. The Court simply pointed to the statutory language, which it found clear and controlling. The court stated:

The Court agrees that whether he lied is not dispositive since the confidentiality provision does not apply only to truthful information. But this does not assist the Defendants. The ADA clearly protects the confidentiality of Mr. Blancos’ response if truthful and the ADA still protects its confidentiality if not. In other words, there is no prevarication exception to the ADA’s confidentiality mandate for employment entrance examinations, much less for information the company doctor perceives is inaccurate. It is the information, accurate or not, that the statute protects.

In response to the conflicting loyalty argument, the Court reasoned:

The brief answer, however, is that these policy arguments do not trump the statutory language. Congress, not this Court, is a policy-making body, and the Court is duty-bound to follow the law as enacted by Congress. Congress may or may not have considered whether to carve out a disclosure exception for instances where the employer concludes that the employee lied or misrepresented his pre- employment medical or mental condition. In any event, there is no such exception in the statute.

More than ever, businesses are realizing that comprehensive approaches to disability and leave management not only can mitigate compliance and litigation concerns, but also can enhance employee productivity and, therefore, profit margins. For these companies, on-site health clinics, occupational health clinics, and in-house physicians can be attractive options. However, as this case makes clear, employers need to be mindful of the workplace law risks. The ADA may be one source of such risks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One might think that bankruptcy is a private matter, with little to no bearing on whether one can meet the qualifications for a particular job. As my colleagues report today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia) joins its sister Circuits (the Third and Fifth Circuits) in holding that it is not impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code for an employer to refuse to hire an applicant due to a prior bankruptcy. Myers v. Toojay’s Mgmt. Corp., No. 10-10774 (11th Cir. May 17, 2011). However, as discussed in their report, the Code does state that a private employer may not “terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against” an employee due to a bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 525(b).

Of course, what is permissible under the Bankruptcy Code may not be under state law. As the report notes, and as reported here, a handful of states (e.g., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) have enacted limitations on an employer’s ability to acquire or use credit information in making hiring decisions. Further, any bankruptcy information acquired with respect to an applicant may include personal information that may need to be safeguarded, and as my colleagues advise, the use of that information should be based on job-related considerations to avoid Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims based on adverse impact theories. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the White House issued a Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal. The proposed legislation focuses on protecting the American people, the nation’s critical infrastructure, and the federal government's computers and networks.  While legislation of this nature would simplify the breach reporting process for businesses, and overall streamline cybersecurity laws, a number of legislative attempts to do this have previously failed.  It is important to note that while this proposal sets forth some guidelines, the specific details of how each provision would be instituted are not yet clear

Our critical infrastructure – such as the electricity grid, financial sector, and transportation networks that sustain our way of life – have suffered repeated cyber intrusion, and cyber crime has increased dramatically over the law decade. The President has thus made cybersecurity an Administration priority. 

1.  To protect the American people, the proposed legislation calls for a national data breach reporting law which would simplify and standardize the existing patchwork of 47 state laws that contain these requirements. Additionally, the proposal calls for penalties for computer criminals and clarifies the penalties for computer crimes, synchronizes them with other crimes, and sets mandatory minimums for cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure.
2. To protect our nation’s critical infrastructure the proposal calls on legislative changes to fully protect this infrastructure. Specifically, proposal will enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to quickly help a private-sector company, state, or local government when that organization asks for its help. It also clarifies the type of assistance that DHS can provide to the requesting organization.

Additionally, the proposal permits businesses, states, and local governments to share information about cyber threats or incidents with DHS. To fully address these entities’ concerns, it also provides them with immunity when sharing cybersecurity information with DHS. At the same time, the proposal mandates robust privacy oversight to ensure that the voluntarily shared information does not impinge on individual privacy and civil liberties.

Further, the proposal emphasizes transparency to help market forces ensure that critical-infrastructure operators are accountable for their cybersecurity.

Finally, the proposal requires DHS to work with industry to identify the core critical-infrastructure operators and to prioritize the most important cyber threats and vulnerabilities for those operators. Critical infrastructure operators would then take steps to address cyber threats, develop risk mitigation plans, and permit DHS to modify the processes which are implemented if they are insufficient. 

3.  To protect federal government computers and networks the legislative proposal includes: an update to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) as well as formalizing DHS’ current role in managing cybersecurity for the Federal Government’s civilian computers and networks, in order to provide departments and agencies with a shared source of expertise; giving DHS more flexibility in hiring highly-qualified cybersecurity professionals; the permanency of DHS’s authority to oversee intrusion prevention systems for all Federal Executive Branch civilian computers while codifying strong privacy and civil liberties protections, congressional reporting requirements, and an annual certification process; and preventions on states requiring companies to build their data centers in that state, as opposed to in the cloud, except where expressly authorized by federal law.

The Administration’s proposal also attempts to ensure the protection of individuals’ privacy and civil liberties through a framework designed expressly to address the challenges of cybersecurity. Some of these provisions include: requiring federal agencies (and likely federal contractors) to follow privacy and civil liberties procedures; limitations on monitoring, collecting, using, retaining, and sharing of information; requiring efforts to remove identifying information unrelated to cybersecurity threats; as well as immunity provisions for those business which comply with the proposal’s requirements.  

As the proposal concludes: 

Our Nation is at risk… [t]he Administration has responded to Congress’ call for input on the cybersecurity legislation that our Nation needs, and we look forward to engaging with Congress as they move forward on this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In distinct efforts to strengthen data security requirements, the California and Massachusetts legislatures recently passed bills affecting data breach notification requirements and data security notification, respectively.  

On April 14, 2011, the California senate approved S.B. 24, requiring California businesses and agencies to notify the state attorney general if more than 500 California residents are notified of a data breach. The California bill also would require certain information be included in the notices.

While similar attempts to modify California’s data breach law have been vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), the state’s new governor, Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr. (D) may likely sign S.B. 24. The bill also would amend the substitute notice provisions for breaches to require placing a notice that a breach has occurred on the business’s website and in major statewide media and notifying the California Office of Privacy Protection. 

While California’s current breach notice statute does not specify the information that must be included in an individual breach notification, S.B. 24 would mandate the notice include, among other things, the type of information breached, the time of the breach, and a toll-free telephone number of major credit reporting agencies.

On April 13, 2011, Massachusetts H.B. 3360 was referred for committee consideration. Under the bill, vendors of photocopiers in Massachusetts that fail to adequately notify purchasers of potential data security risks would be subject to a civil fine of up to $50,000 and could be sued by customers whose personal information is subsequently compromised.  Also, Massachusetts businesses that sell photocopiers must tell customers if a particular machine is equipped with a hard drive capable of retaining information from copied documents. Vendors must provide a notice stating that "the photocopier does or does not contain an eraser that deletes and destroys any previously captured picture from the copier's hard drive.” The notice must “inform the user of the risk of retention of such private data or images.” In addition, if a machine is such a “digital copier,” the vendor also must place a “conspicuous,” written data-security warning on the top of the copier.

H.B. 3360 also authorizes the state attorney general to enforce the law by filing a civil action seeking a fine of up to $50,000. Additionally, the bill would permit a lawsuit by customers who did not receive the required notification and warnings and whose private data was subsequently “misused.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two Senators who clearly did not let the potential government work stoppage affect them, formally introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 on April 12.  In a bipartisan effort, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Arizona) introduced the legislation which sets forth privacy rules governing businesses that collect, use, or share personal data.

Under the bill, the Federal Trade Commission is given rulemaking and enforcement power.  Additionally, the bill would require covered entities to implement comprehensive privacy by design programs and provide clear disclosures of their data-collection practices.  Further, the FTC would be given authority to approve nongovernmental organizations to oversee safe harbor programs for firms that complied with approved self-regulatory schemes.

While passage of national privacy legislation has proven difficult in the past, companies must remain aware of these legislative updates, especially when they are of a bi-partisan nature.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Written by Nick Beermann

In a case addressing the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that directly implicates the privacy rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Pacosa v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest, the Portland Division of the United States District Court of Oregon awarded summary judgment against a physician assistant who claimed he was discharged in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. While the court primarily focused on the boundaries of what constitutes FMLA retaliation, the case serves as a good example of the limits healthcare companies can place on employee access to available protected health information and enforcement mechanisms for addressing violations of such access.

Frank Pacosa was a physician assistant for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest in Portland, Oregon. He alleged that he took intermittent leave under the FMLA for a period of 2001 to 2008 for purposes of caring for his wife’s clinical depression. While employed, Pacosa signed a number of confidentiality agreements, which prohibited him from accessing his own health records or those health records of his family or friends on Kaiser Permanente’s proprietary medical records system unless he had specific authorization from the patient and the access was approved. An additional confidentiality policy that he signed and had training on prohibited him, as an employee, from accessing any protected health information records except where related to his job.

In 2008, Kaiser Permanente’s Compliance Department received a series of phone calls from Pacosa’s wife, who informed it that Pacosa had accessed her medical records without authorization and that he was using the information to obtain a restraining order against her. The Compliance Department’s investigation revealed that Pacosa had accessed his wife’s records without authorization, and further accessed and edited his daughter’s records as if he was the treating medical provider, all while he was on alleged FMLA leave.

Kaiser Permanente determined that Pacosa, who at one time served on the Confidentiality Committee and Health Information Management Committee, improperly and with intent of personal gain, accessed the protected health information of his wife and daughter, violating its confidentiality policies. Kaiser Permanente terminated Pacosa’s employment on October 30, 2008.

Pacosa sued Kaiser Permanente in Oregon District Court, alleging multiple state and federal statutory violations, including that his termination interfered with his leave rights under the FMLA. The Oregon District Court granted summary judgment on each of Pacosa’s claims, determining that there was no issue of material fact that Pacosa violated confidentiality policies, which was the reason for his termination rather than any FMLA violation.

As we have touched upon in previous posts, the chance of a data breach or information misuse rises with the use of electronic data and employee access to that data. Of course, the advent of the electronic medical record is both a result of developing technology and required under HIPAA, but as Mr. Pacosa’s termination illustrates, the portability of electronic records make it easy to view or misuse a patient’s private health information.

Kaiser Permanente’s repeated distributions of confidentiality policies and the obligations to secure and limit access to protected health information by employees illustrates a best practice and minimum necessary compliance obligation that covered entities have under HIPAA’s privacy rule and recent changes to it in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). The Pacosa case serves as another reminder to covered entities to review and place appropriate limits on employee access to protected health information.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The confidentiality of medical records requirement under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is violated when an employer discloses a current or former employee's medical records in response to a state court subpoena absent the employee's release or some other exception under the ADA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently held in Bennett v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2011 WL 244217 (E.E.O.C.), Jan. 11, 2011.

Companies frequently receive requests for information about current and former employees. These requests often come in the form of an attorney's demand letter or a subpoena and apply to the individual's medical records. Those receiving such requests typically feel compelled to respond without taking the time to think through issues such as: 

• what kind of information in contained within the files being requested;
• what specific statutory or regulatory protections apply for some or all of the information being requested (see below);
• is a response appropriate without an authorization of the individual or giving an individual an opportunity to object;
• is a court order needed for some or all of the information being requested; and
• what safeguards should be taken to ensure the disclosure is secure.

As we have reported previously, failing to think through these issues can be a costly trap for the unwary.

EEOC Analysis

In the Bennett decision cited above, the EEOC sets out the basic ADA requirements concerning confidentiality of employee medical records:

Title I of the [ADA] requires that all information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of an applicant or employee must be maintained on separate forms and in separate files and must be treated as confidential medical records. [Citations omitted]. These requirements also extend to medical information that an
individual voluntarily discloses to an employer. [Citations omitted]. The confidentiality obligation imposed on an employer by the ADA remains regardless of whether an applicant is eventually hired or the employment relationship ends. [Citations omitted]. These requirements apply to confidential medical information from any applicant or employee and are not limited to individuals with disabilities. [Citations omitted].

The decision goes on to explain the general exceptions to these requirements:

• supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations;
• first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment; 
• government officials investigating compliance with this part shall be provided relevant information on request;
• employers may disclose medical information to state workers' compensation offices, state second injury funds, workers' compensation insurance carriers, and to health care professionals when seeking advice in making reasonable accommodation determinations; and
• employers may use medical information for insurance purposes.

The EEOC found that the Postal Service's disclosure of Mr. Bennett's medical records in response to the subpoena issued by the Galveston County 405th District Court did not fall into one of these exceptions. The EEOC held that while the ADA allows an employer to comply with the requirements of another federal statute or rule, even if in conflict with the ADA, "it is not a valid defense to argue that the [Postal Service's] actions were required by state law," (emphasis added) unless one of the ADA exceptions applied.  The Commission also noted the subpoena in this case was signed and issued by the Deputy Clerk, and did not qualify as an “order” for purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974, on which the Agency attempted to rely to permit the disclosure.

Because of this violation of the ADA, the EEOC ordered the Postal Service (i) to start an investigation into compensatory and other damages that may be due to Mr. Bennett,  (ii) to conduct training concerning the ADA's confidentiality requirements, and (iii) to prepare a report regarding corrective action. The Postal Service also may be responsible for Mr. Bennett's attorneys' fees, among other things.

Is the ADA the only concern?

In short, no, the ADA is only one protection for medical and other personal information that could trigger exposure for a company that improperly discloses such information. There is an increasing array of federal and state laws that need to be examined, as appropriate, before responding to a request:

• GINA: Regulations issued under Title II (GINA's employment provisions) provide that  employers that possess genetic information must maintain the information in confidence and may not disclose that information except in limited circumstances, such as (i) at the request of the employee, (ii) in response to a court order, (iii) to respond to a request from a government official investigating GINA compliance, or (iv) in support of an employee’s FMLA certification. The preamble to the GINA regulations provides that the court order exception "does not allow disclosures in other circumstances during litigation, such as in response to discovery requests or subpoenas that are not governed by an order specifying that genetic information must be disclosed. Thus, a covered entity’s refusal to provide genetic information in response to a discovery order, subpoena, or court order that does not specify that genetic information must be disclosed is consistent with the requirements of GINA." Additionally, the individual whose genetic information is disclosed may need to be notified. 
• HIPAA: The privacy regulations under HIPAA likewise generally prohibit the disclosure of "protected health information" except in limited circumstances. HIPAA regulation 45 CFR 164.512(e), among other exceptions to the general rule, provides an exception for disclosures in connection with administrative and judicial proceedings. But one of the first questions to ask is whether the information being sought is "protected health information." Very often, employee medical information in a personnel or medical file is not, in the hands of the employer, protected health information subject to HIPAA. 
• 42 USC Part 2: Federal law provides very stringent protection for records relating to substance abuse treatment at certain federally funded facilities. 
• State law: Many states have laws protecting certain classes of medical records from disclosure without taking appropriate safeguards to address confidentiality. This includes application of the physician-patient privilege, as well as statutes and regulations dealing with specific types of information, such as mental health records. 

Because of these issues, businesses should develop a clear policy and procedure to direct employees on how to respond when they receive these requests. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 18, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2010. The law has two key components. 

First, the law establishes that no Federal, State, or local agency may display the Social Security account number of any individuals or any derivative of such number, on any check issued for payment by said agency. 

Second, the law prohibits Federal, State, or local agencies from employing, or entering into a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners in any capacity that would allow such prisoners access to the Social Security account numbers of other individuals. 

As employers have been grappling with the recent uptick in state laws addressing safeguards for Social Security numbers, this new law tightens protections at the federal level.   Additionally, federal contractors may need to consider how this change impacts their other obligations under the Federal Information Security Management Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Minnesota Court of Appeals panel has affirmed the issuance of a temporary injunction against a co-owner of an LLC blocking him from accessing emails of his partner from the company's server in the midst of their business dispute.  The unpublished decision, Gates v. Wheeler A09-2355 (Minn. App. November 23, 2010), raises some interesting issues regarding email privacy under unsettled Minnesota law.

The parties were co-owners of a limited liability company called Residential Science Resources. After a falling out, Gates sued Wheeler under a Minnesota law which allows the court to grant equitable relief in the case of a management deadlock. Wheeler was the designated administrator for the company's server. Without informing Gates, Wheeler hired an outside information technology contractor to obtain access to Gates' personal and business emails. The information included correspondence between Gates and his wife, financial and password information, discussions with his accountant, and communications with his lawyer regarding the pending lawsuit. After learning of the interception at a deposition, Gates sought an injunction halting Wheeler's access. The district court granted the injunction, concluding that Gates had established a "probability of success on the merits for claims of invasion of privacy, violation of the Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act, violation of the Federal Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment." Gates had not asserted these claims prior to his request for an injunction, but did so later by amending his complaint. In response to Gates's challenge, the Appellate Court held that the court's authority to issue an injunction is not limited to matters raised in the underlying complaint, relying in part on the court's broad equitable powers in business disputes.

The Court also affirmed the district court's analysis that the privacy claims had a probability of success on the merits, noting however that there were no published Minnesota cases applying common law invasion of privacy claims to interception of email. Although noting that Gates and Wheeler were partners and not employer and employee, it also cited the analysis in In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd, a Bankruptcy Court decision from the Southern District of New York regarding employee expectations of privacy in workplace email. The court also stated that

the division of Gates' account into personal and  private business files indicates that Gates expected the personal file would be private.

This suggests that individuals with company email accounts should take similar steps to differentiate personal information. Surprisingly, the court did not delve into the issues of privilege regarding Gates' communications with his attorney.

The decision reflects increasing tensions over the privacy of information contained on employer email servers and may encourage more litigation in Minnesota under state and federal privacy laws involving emails.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the name of vehicle safety, California Assembly Bill 1942 will permit among other things “driver cams” to be mounted on vehicle windshields beginning on January 1, 2011. Formally known as “video event recorders,” these devices can continuously record audio, video, and G-force levels in a digital loop in order to help identify bad driver habits or other factors that lead to vehicle accidents. Well intended, the new law certainly will create a range of privacy issues for employers, particularly those in the transportation and delivery business.

Specifically, the law will permit the monitoring of driver performance through video event recorders so long as the following are satisfied:

• Size limitation – The recorder must be mounted either (i) in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, (ii) in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, or (iii) in a five-inch square mounted to the center uppermost portion of the interior of the windshield.
• Notice requirement – A notice must be posted in a visible location informing passengers that their conversations may be recorded.
• Length of recording – No more than 30 seconds may be recorded before or after a triggering event, e.g., a collision.
• Driver for hire rights – Employers that install a video event recorder in vehicles of their employees driving for hire must provide those employees with unedited copies of the recordings upon the request of the employee or the employee’s representative. These copies must be provided free of charge to the employee and within five (5) days of the request.

There are a number of obvious issues that face employers interested in utilizing video event recorders, such as not knowing what information will be captured by these devices and how to discipline employees who violate policy as shown in the recording. There are other less obvious issues which employers should consider when deciding to implement this technology.

For example, the law does not provide a period after which employees can no longer request a copy of the recording. This raises the question of how long recordings must be maintained. Another concern is whether information captured in a recording could be used against the employer, such as in a wage and hour class actions or violations of common carrier or vehicle safety requirements. Because the law is designed to address vehicle safety, a question exists as to whether the law implies a training requirement on employers aware of bad driving habits of employees from the recordings.

For these and other reasons, employers ought to think carefully before implementing this technology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Szymuszkiewicz recently affirmed the criminal conviction of an employee under the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, after he auto-forwarded emails from his supervisor’s email account to his own. The Court concluded the use of the auto-forward feature constituted an “interception” in violation of the Act.

Szymuszkiewicz shows the application of traditional criminal statutes like the Wiretap Act to Internet-based modes of communications such as email, but also to voice-over IP phone communications. The case also is an example of the courts' continuing struggle with applying the Act to modern communications technologies such as email. Szymuszkiewicz is an instructive reminder for employers, however, about the remedies applicable under the Act to employees who misuse an employer’s email system actions, in addition to traditional remedies such as discipline or termination. In light of the length of time in which Szymuszkiewicz forwarded his supervisor’s emails without her knowledge, 3 years, the case also highlights a need for review and audit of employer technology systems and education to employees to monitor their accounts for privacy purposes.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal contractors are subject to numerous requirements under federal law and, as we have previously highlighted here, need to keep pace with changes in law and regulation. 

Under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) each federal agency is required to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source. Accordingly, FISMA provides authority for the imposition of requirements on those companies which qualify as federal contractors. 

By way of example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs impose specific requirements on their contractors.   

Adding new data protection requirements for federal contractors who use or handle U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) information, the DOD earlier this year issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding amendments, 75 F.R. 9563, to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 

The proposed amendments require “adequate security,” defined as “protection measures … commensurate with the risks of loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of information,” and have three main subparts; basic safeguarding, enhanced safeguarding, and cyber intrusion reporting. 

Basic safeguards, required for any unclassified DOD information, include:

• Designating  the level of access and dissemination of informationProtecting DOD information on public computer or Web sites
• Transmitting electronic information using technology and processes that provide the best level of security and privacy
• Transmitting voice and fax information on with reasonable assurances that access is limited
• Protect information by at least one physical or electronic barrier
• Sanitize media in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) before external release or disposal
• Provide protection against computer intrusions and the unauthorized release of data. 

In addition to the basic safeguards outlined above, contractors are required to implement enhanced safeguards to certain types of data. The enhanced safeguards include:

• Encryption/Storage controls
• Network intrusion protection
• Implement information security controls

Additionally, a reporting requirement has now been proposed, requiring contractors to report to the DOD within 72 hours of any cyber intrusion event that affects DOD information resident on or transiting the contractor’s unclassified information systems.

The new proposed DOD amendments, along with the various other federal contractor requirements, including those imposed by CMS and the Department of Veterans Affairs, highlight the necessity for companies that qualify as federal contractors to be up to date on their legal obligations or risk loss of their federal contractor status. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A UK law firm may find itself subject to significant penalties following reports of a data breach affecting thousands of people.  The recent 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco devoted two sessions to the topic, specifically dealing with “cloud computing,” and the risks and ethical issues it raises for law firms. As data privacy and security risks mount for all businesses, they are perhaps even more critical for law firms. 

Law schools in the United States teach their students about a long-standing and fundamental tenet of the legal profession – the attorney-client privilege. It is indeed the general obligation of attorneys to keep client communications confidential. Law schools generally do not teach, at least not nearly to the same degree, how lawyers as law firm business owners ought to protect the personal information of their clients from unauthorized acquisition or access, without hampering their practice.

This primer is intended to provide a brief discussion of the key issues for law firms and some helpful steps for developing a plan to safeguard such information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Indiana recently enacted a new law which grants authority to the Indiana Office of the Attorney General's Identity Theft Unit to obtain and secure abandoned records with personally identifying information, including health records, and either destroy them or return them to their owners. Additionally, the new law sets fines and other legal ramifications for violations of the law by health care providers or licensed professionals who leave such records unsecured in violation of state law. In fact, the Attorney General has already utilized this authority to obtain personal records from four entities. 

This additional grant of authority to the Indiana Attorney General, is in addition to the authority previously granted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act to enforce the privacy and security protections of HIPAA for protected health information. As we have previously discussed, the Connecticut Attorney General has filed a civil action against Health Net, as well as instituted an investigation against Griffin Hospital for violations of HIPAA. 

The Indiana statute, as with the authority granted to Attorney Generals under HITECH, highlight the need for companies to develop and implement comprehensive data security polices to secure their records. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in City of Ontario, California v. Quon.  In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the search of Quon's text messages, sent or received on his department issued pager, was reasonable and did not violate Quon's Fourth Amendment rights. 

As set forth in the opinion, the Court did not resolve the parties disagreement over Quon's privacy expectations, and instead disposed the case on the narrower grounds of the reasonableness of the search.  While the Court chose not to utilize the facts of this case to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices, the Court did note that 

Employer policies concerning communications will of course shape the reasonable expectations of their employees, especially to the extent that such policies are clearly communicated.

Click here for a more in depth analysis of the decision. See our previous posts on Quon, here and here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Keystroke logging (or “keylogging”) is the noting (or logging) of the keys struck on a computer keyboard. Typically, this is done secretly, so  the keyboard user is unaware his activities are being monitored.

Several cases throughout the country have examined an employer’s use of keylogging.  Recently, the Criminal Court of the City of New York held in New York v. Klapper  that an employer who installed keylogging software on office computers and subsequently monitored an employee's e-mail activity did not, absent some showing of contrary e-mail protections or acceptable use policies, access a computer “without authorization” in violation of New York law. 

In some of the strongest language against the premise of e-mail privacy to date, the Court stated in its April 28, 2010 opinion:

[t]he concept of internet privacy is a fallacy upon which no one should rely. It is today’s reality that a reasonable expectation of internet privacy is lost, upon your affirmative keystroke. 

The Court found that e-mails are more akin to a postcard than a letter, as they are less secure and can easily be viewed by a passerby. An employee who sends an e-mail from a work computer sends a communication that will travel through the employer's central computer and will be commonly stored on the employer's server even after it is received and read. Once stored on the server, the employer can easily scan or read all stored e-mails or data. The same holds true once the e-mail reaches its destination, as it travels through the Internet via an Internet service provider. Accordingly, this process diminishes an individual's expectation of privacy in e-mail communications.

In contrast to the strong language from New York, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in Brahmana v. Lembo that a plaintiff could proceed to trial in his case alleging his employer committed an impermissible “interception” under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) by using keylogging to discover the password to his personal e-mail account, and using the logged password, accessed his personal e-mail.  However, another California District Court found in United States v. Ropp that because the keylogger recorded the keystroke information in transit between the keyboard and the CPU, the system transmitting the information did not affect interstate commerce as the required by the ECPA.  Further complicating the issue, a federal court in Ohio questioned Ropp, suggesting in Porter v. Havlicek that it read the statute too narrowly by requiring the communication to be traveling in interstate commerce as opposed to merely “affecting interstate commerce.”

Because of the numerous issues arising from the use of electronic communications, and the varying court opinions on these questions, employers would do well to reexamine their use of keystroke monitoring or logging technology on a regular basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We are honored that the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations (NAPEO), the largest national trade association for professional employer organizations (PEOs), recently published our article in its May 2010 edition of its PEO Insider publication, an important resource for any PEO.  

PEOs no doubt provide valuable services for businesses across the country. However, in doing so, they generally have access to and maintain vast amounts of personal information. Our article, "Key Data Privacy and Security Issues for PEOs," summarizes emerging data privacy and security laws and their effects on PEOs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As highlighted by many news sources, including CNN.com and MSNBC.com, the United States Supreme Court listened to oral argument (pdf) today in the case of City of Ontario v. Quon today. This is the case involving a police officer who claimed his employer violated his privacy when it read the personal text messages (which happened to be sexually explicit in nature) which he sent and received using his department issued pager.  For further information concerning this case, see our prior analysis, as well as the discussion at Inc.com. Stay tuned for an update following the Supreme Court's decision. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-author: Joseph J. Lazzarotti

The New Jersey’s highest Court has concluded that an employee, Marina Stengart, could reasonably expect that e-mail communication with her lawyer through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account would remain private, and that sending and receiving them using a company laptop did not eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected them. The Court went on to say that her employer’s counsel had violated the rules of professional conduct by reading her e-mails. The Supreme Court decided Stengart v. Loving Care on March 30, 2010 upholding the June 2009 decision of the state Appellate Division. 

This case makes two important points for employers: 

1) The Court stated that even a more clearly written and unambiguous policy regarding employer monitoring of emails would not be enforceable. That is, a clear policy stating that the employer could retrieve and read an employee’s attorney-client communication, accessed through a personal, password-protected e-mail account using the company’s computer system will not overcome an employee’s expectation of privacy and the privilege would remain. 

2) The Court's opinion seems to suggest that employers cannot discipline employees for simply spending some time at work receiving personal, confidential legal advice from a private lawyer, although the Court noted that an employee who “spends long stretches of the workday” doing so may be disciplined. 

Loving Care's employee handbook’s “Electronic Communication” policy governed employees’ use of company computers. The policy stated, among other things, “internet use and communication … are considered part of the company’s business” and “such communication are not to be considered private or personal to any individual employee.” However, the policy also provided, “[o]ccasional personal use is permitted.”

The Court found the Policy does not give express notice to employees that messages exchanged on a personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account are subject to monitoring if company equipment is used. Although the Policy states that the company may review matters on “the company’s media systems and services,” those terms are not defined. The prohibition of certain uses of “the e-mail system” appears to refer to a company e-mail account, not personal accounts. Similarly, the Policy does not warn that the contents of personal, web-based e-mails are stored on a hard drive and can be forensically retrieved and read. The Court also found the Policy creates ambiguity by declaring that e-mails “are not to be considered private or personal,” while also permitting “occasional personal use” of e-mail.

The Court determined that an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular work setting must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but stated that by using a personal e-mail account and not saving the password, Stengart had a subjectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails exchanged with her attorney on her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account, which was accessed on a company laptop. This subjective expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable in light of the ambiguous language of the Policy and the attorney-client nature of the communication.

This decision, and others highlighted previously in this blog, present numerous issues for employers.  While it may not be enforceable in New Jersey, we recommend, in light of the reasoning in this decision, that employers consider modifying their existing electronic communication policies to include:

• Clear notice that personal, web-based emails accessed using company networks and stored on company networks or company computers can be monitored and reviewed by the company (of course, care should be taken here to avoid concerns under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act);
• Definitions of the specific technologies and devices to which the policies apply;
• Warnings that web-based, personal e-mail can be stored on the hard-drive of a computer and forensically accessed;
• No ambiguities about personal use. 

See our sample electronic communication policy outline for more information. However, even with such a policy in place, employers and their lawyers must be aware of the potential liability they face for improperly accessing information on the employers' systems which may later be deemed “private” or subject to a privilege.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-authored by Jason Gavejian

Employees’ increasing sensitivity to data privacy and security, and widely accepted public policy to protect personal data maintained by businesses, require employers to respond meaningfully to employee data privacy and security complaints or risk whistle blower claims of retaliation.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that an employee who voiced concerns regarding his employer’s handling of data security before he was fired may proceed to trial under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) on the ground that he was engaged in protected whistle blowing activity under CEPA. This is one of the first decisions linking a NJ CEPA or similar claim and data security concerns, and is in line with increased efforts by both the federal and state governments to protect employee data. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New mobile phone technology may allow employers to track very precise movements and activities of employees, such as walking, climbing stairs or even cleaning. As reported by Michael Fitzpatrick of BBC News, the technology developed by KDDI Corporation, a Japanese company, “works by analyzing the movement of accelerometers, found in many handsets.” This enhanced level of monitoring likely will raise serious concerns for courts seeking to balance an employer’s legitimate need to monitor employees with an employee’s expectation of privacy.

To get a sense of how sensitive this technology is, Mr. Fitzpatrick notes that a KDDI mobile phone

strapped to a cleaning worker's waist can tell the difference between actions performed such as scrubbing, sweeping, walking and even emptying a rubbish bin.

Employers should proceed with caution. There certainly are legitimate business reasons for gathering and analyzing this kind of data:

• Improving customer service
• Enhancing employee productivity
• Identifying safety concerns and rectifying them
• Ensuring employees are performing only assigned tasks
• Confirming employees are working when they say that they are

At the same time, significant concerns about the technology and how it is implemented, together with the potential for unintended consequences, should motivate employers to think carefully before using this equipment:

• Does the technology really work as advertised?
• Can employees manipulate the “accelerometers,” creating false positives for employers?
• When should/must employers turn the monitoring off?
• Will effects will data capable of showing the time, date and duration of certain activities have in the areas of wage and hour law, collective bargaining, classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors, workers’ compensation, administration of leaves of absence, and so on?
• Will data collected constitute personal information to be safeguarded and retained?
• Will employers be required to produce information collected through these mobile phones in unrelated litigation, such as where an employee’s spouse seeking to prove claims of adultery in a divorce action seeks “phone” records to show the location and activity of the employee-spouse?
• Some states already have laws dealing with electronic monitoring, but it is unclear how those laws will apply to this new technology. For example, a Connecticut statute prohibits employers from recording or monitoring the activities of employees in areas designed for the health or personal comfort of the employees or for safeguarding of their possessions, such as rest rooms, locker rooms or lounges operating.  When Connecticut employers perform permissible electronic monitoring on their premises, they must provide employees with prior written notice. 

However, if these phones work as intended, the level of intrusiveness likely will spur opposition by privacy advocates and additional legislation. It also is possible that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, and Lloyd Scharf v. Jeff Quon, et al., currently before the Court, will provide guidance for employers and lower courts as they consider the effects new technologies have on workplace privacy issues. In that case, one issue the Court is considering is whether a California police department violated the privacy of one of its officers when it read the personal text messages on his department issued pager.

There is no doubt technology will continue to advance and bring with it enhanced functionality and capabilities. While the law will try to keep pace, employers will be challenged to apply these technologies in ways that meet the demands of their business, while avoiding the pitfalls of law not yet clearly established.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Contributed by Lillian Chaves Moon

Based partially upon an interpretation of Florida law, in Global Policy Partners, LLC, et al. v. Yessin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112472 (Nov. 24, 2009), a Virginia district court has ruled that an LLC’s partner does not always have the authority to access a partner’s e-mails simply by virtue of his status in the company.

Katherine and Brent Yessin, husband and wife and business partners, were feuding as part of a messy divorce and business dissolution. Mrs. Yessin, on behalf of herself and the Florida business, brought suit against Mr. Yessin for his alleged illegal access of her personal e-mails, including those containing attorney-client communications in her divorce case, stored on the company’s server in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. §1030(a), and other federal and state statutes. In a motion to dismiss his wife’s complaint, Mr. Yessin argued that under Florida law, as a manager/partner in his business, he had the authority to access all e-mails stored on the business’s computer server regardless of his reason for doing so. The court disagreed.

The court found that even assuming Florida law authorized managers to access e-mail information stored on a company’s computer system, authorization is limited to carrying out the company’s business. Likewise, under the CFAA, authorization to access a computer system may not simply be based on a person’s status within the organization, but whether the person is accessing information in accordance with the “expected norms or intended use” of the computer network. Because the scope of Mr. Yessin’s authority to access his wife’s e-mails depended upon a detailed factual inquiry into his purposes for doing so, Mr. Yessin’s motion to dismiss the CFAA counts of the complaint was denied and Mrs. Yessin was allowed to proceed in her action.

Caution for employers: This decision has implications for employers in how and why managers may access employee e-mails. While an employer generally has the right to review stored e-mails on the employer’s system, regardless of whether the e-mails are an employee’s personal or business communications, the employer or employer’s agent must have a legitimate business purpose for such review, not a nefarious reason. Note, however, that, some courts have limited an employer’s ability to review an employee’s e-mails in other situations, such as when the e-mail is subject to the attorney-client privilege. Employers’ policies and procedures for accessing employee e-mails should be periodically reviewed and revised, where necessary, to ensure that the individuals who access lawfully stored e-mails not only have the appropriate status within the company, but also are doing so for legitimate business purposes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Contributed by Kathryn J. Russo.

A recent case emphasizes that employers must ensure they do not make improper medical inquiries related to pre-employment drug test results at the pre-offer stage. John Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., No. 08-16656, 2010 App. LEXIS 632 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010). Some valuable lessons for employers are discussed below.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals permitted an applicant who was not hired after testing positive for drugs used to control his epilepsy to proceed with his lawsuit asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act because there were factual issues whether the employer made an improper medical inquiry and denied employment on that basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, and Lloyd Scharf v. Jeff Quon, et al. highlights the effects new technologies continue to have on workplace privacy issues. One issue the Court will consider is whether a California police department violated the privacy of one of its officers when it read the personal text messages on his department issued pager. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court sided with the police officer when it ruled that users of text messaging services “have a reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding messages stored on the service provider’s network.

The underlying suit was filed by police Sgt. Jeff Quon, his wife, his girlfriend, and another police sergeant after one of Quon’s superiors audited his messages and found that many of them were sexually explicit and personal in nature.   Among the defendants were the City of Ontario, the Ontario Police Department, and Arch Wireless Operating. Co. Inc. Plaintiffs sought damages for alleged violation of their privacy rights.

While this case involves a public sector entity, its outcome is likely to affect electronic communications policies and practices across the country, whether by public or privacy employers.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As the holidays approach, more of us will be utilizing work time, and likely work resources, to handle our holiday shopping. Some of us may even post our shopping successes or gift ideas on Facebook or email coupons to friends. Doing so not only results in a loss of employee productivity, but also creates significant risk that personal data will be breached, or employers’ software or hardware compromised. 

A recent survey conducted on behalf of the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (“ISACA”) found that over half of employees surveyed planned to shop online from a work computer this holiday season, spending nearly two full working days (14.4 hours) doing so. With convenience and boredom listed as the biggest motivators, one in 10 planned to spend at least 30 hours shopping online at work. 

The survey also found that those who shop online are more likely to engage in other high-risk behaviors, such as banking online, clicking on links from social networking sites like Facebook, and clicking e-mail links redirecting them to shopping sites. Employees engage in these high-risk behaviors with nearly universal disregard for the safety of the employer’s IT infrastructure. This is highlighted  by the fact that one in 10 Americans who use a mobile work device, such as a Blackberry or iPhone, plan to use it for holiday shopping, notwithstanding the lack of security measures on those devices.

Robert Stroud, international VP of ISACA and VP of IT service management and governance for the service management business unit at CA Inc., in connection with the survey above was quoted as saying,

[I]t’s unrealistic to think that companies can completely stop the use of work computers for online shopping…[W]hat companies can and should do is educate employees about the risks…and remind them of their company’s security policy. This is especially important this year, when the convenience of shopping online may be very appealing to employees whose workloads have doubled or tripled because of downsizing.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article highlighting employers’ efforts to monitor employees’ usage of company time and resources for personal e-mail exchanges, and suggesting a trend that courts seem to be more protective of employee privacy rights than in years past. The WSJ article raised a number of concerns for employers, including that of our own Jane McFetridge, a Jackson Lewis partner in our Chicago office - 

Employers are right to expect their employees when they are paid for their time at work are actually working.

What ever a company's policies are concerning managing or monitoring employee communications, now is as good a time as any to revisit those policies and remind employees of their existence. With the use of technology increasing and the position of the courts appearing to shift toward employees, it is becoming more difficult for employers to manage the employee use of their electronic systems. Having and communicating a clear and comprehensive electronic communications policy is critical.

Steps an employer can take include having acceptable-use policies, reviewing those policies with employees to educate them about the risks, and familiarizing themselves with state laws governing the monitoring of employee computer usage.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A New Jersey restaurant has been hit with a jury verdict in favor of two waiters who were fired after the restaurant’s managers accessed a private social networking site where the waiters were criticizing management.

As the social networking (e.g., MySpace and Facebook) “craze” continues to expand, employers must be more mindful of privacy concerns relating to content made available in these media by applicants and employees. Hiring and other job decisions often seem based on information obtained from employees’ or applicants’ social interactions on the Internet, at least to some degree. Generally, employment decisions are more supportable where there is a social networking policy that has been communicated to employees. 

In Brian Pietrylo, et al. v. Hillstone Restaurant Group d/b/a Houston’s, a federal court in New Jersey rejected the employer’s attempt to throw out the jury verdict that managers at a Houston's restaurant intentionally and without authorization accessed a private, invitation-only chat group on MySpace in violation of the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). The SCA prohibits unauthorized access of stored communications such as e-mail and Internet accounts. The Court also upheld the jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages against Hillstone. 

This case reminds employers to consider carefully any decision to monitor employees’ use of social networking sites.  Mistakes may be costly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks