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

Unless you have been living under a rock from the past 24 hours, you are familiar with the story of Notre Dame linebacker, and Heisman Trophy runner up, Manti Te’o.  

As first reported by Deadspin.com it appears that the story of Manti Te’o’s “girlfriend” and her apparent death at the hands of leukemia were an elaborate hoax.  Deadspin’s article seems to imply that Manti Te’o was somehow involved in this hoax, while CNN.com reports that both Te’o and Notre Dame have insisted that he was simply a victim. 

Lennay Kekua, the name of the “girlfriend,” is apparently only known through several social media accounts maintained in that name.  However, Deadspin reports that it was able to locate the woman whose picture was utilized as the profile picture for Kekua.  According to that woman, the picture used was her public Facebook profile shot.  Similarly, she informed Deadspin that other pictures reporting to be “Kekua,” were actual taken from several of her social media accounts.  

While the details of this story continue to unfold, the story highlights one of the biggest risks of information obtained through social media; reliability.   As evidenced by the Te’o story, it is not difficult for someone to obtain a photograph of an individual and begin social media interactions in either that person’s name, or utilizing that person’s likeness.  Although this story illustrates one way such a “hoax” could occur, it is easily conceivable that a “fake” social media account could be utilized to post discriminatory, hurtful, or insensitive comments in the name of another.  While we have previously highlighted some of the issues surrounding an employer’s search of social media for employees or prospective employees, in this instance, “fake” comments could easily cost an individual a job, or a prospective job.  While the individual may lose out on employment, it is also possible that the employer is losing an excellent employee due to false information. 

• 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

The District Court of New Jersey recently denied an employer’s motion to dismiss a former employee’s causes of action for invasion of privacy following a supervisor’s alleged unauthorized access to the employee’s Facebook account. 

In Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., the plaintiff, a registered nurse and paramedic, alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern of retaliatory conduct as soon as she became President of the local union. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that defendants gained access to her “private” Facebook account by having a supervisor summon another employee, who was “friends” with the plaintiff, into an office and coercing or threatening that employee into accessing their Facebook account so that the supervisor could view those posts which the plaintiff had restricted to only her “friends.”   Plaintiff went on to allege that the supervisor then viewed and copied plaintiff’s Facebook postings. One such post was in regard to a shooting that took place at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and stated:

An 88 yr old sociopath white supremacist opened fire in the Wash D.C. Holocaust Museum this morning and killed an innocent guard (leaving children). Other guards opened fire. The 88 yr old was shot. He survived. I blame the DC paramedics. I wasn’t to say 2 things to the DC medics. 1. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? and 2. This was your opportunity to really make a different! WTF!!!! And to the other guards…go to target practice.

Ultimately, in June 2009 the Hospital sent letters regarding the above posting to the New Jersey Board of Nursing and the New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services as it was concerned that Plaintiff’s Facebook posting showed a disregard for patient safety. Plaintiff alleged the letters were malicious and meant to damage her professionally.

The Court dismissed plaintiff’s New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“NJ Wiretap Act”) claim holding that the NJ Wiretap Act only protects those electronic communications which are in the course of transmission or are backup to that course of transmission. As plaintiff’s allegations involve a “live” posting, it did not fall under the purview of the NJ Wiretap Act. 

However, the Court went on to hold that plaintiff’s common law invasion of privacy claim involving defendants’ unauthorized “accessing of her private Facebook postings” could proceed. In relying on another New Jersey district court case which involved a supervisor’s asking an employee to gain access to a private social media account, the Court held that privacy determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, in light of all the facts presented. The Court went on to hold that the plaintiff had a plausible claim for invasion of privacy as she may have had a reasonable expectation that her Facebook posting would remain private, considering that she actively took steps to protect her Facebook page from public viewing.   

As we have mentioned before, legal guidance involving the utilization of social media in employment decisions is ever evolving and employers must remain vigilant as courts continue to develop these cases.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Fourth Circuit recently held that the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (“CFAA”) prohibitions against unauthorized access or access in excess of authorization were not violated by an employee when the employee used his valid access to employer's computer network to download confidential business information that he later used while working for a competitor.

Prior to his departure from his former employer, the defendant downloaded proprietary information from the plaintiff's network which he allegedly used to win a contract for business. The plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against defendant, alleging, among other things, that he violated the CFAA when he downloaded its proprietary information. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that its policy prohibited employees from downloading confidential and proprietary information to a personal computer. 

In dismissing the CFAA claim, the trial court held, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, that this policy only regulated the use of company information, not accessing that information.  Accordingly, a violation of the policy would not support liability under the CFAA's authorized access provisions. The court ruled that the CFAA prohibits unauthorized acts of obtaining and altering information from a protected computer, not using without authority lawfully accessed information. Because the employee in this case was permitted to have access to the information at the time he downloaded it, his later use of that information for a subsequent employer did not violate the CFAA.

By its holding, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit.  However, the court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s reading of the CFAA that an employee loses lawful authority to access an employer's computer network if the access violates the employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty to the employer. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuit have similarly held that employees will exceed authorized access under the CFAA whenever they go beyond their authorized access. 

While this decision may have limited Fourth Circuit employers’ ability to seek legal action against departing employees under the CFAA, employers in other jurisdictions, as highlighted above, must still consider what remedies may be available under the CFAA.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Virginia district court recently held that an employee’s clicking of the Facebook “like” button is not comparable to speech. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of First Amendment retaliation claims brought by employees of a Virginia sheriff’s office finding that the employees’ action was insufficient to merit constitutional protection.

Sheriff B.J. Roberts of the Hampton, Virginia Sheriff’s Office was up for re-election in 2009. Employees within the sheriff’s office alleged that Sheriff Roberts learned that the employees were supporting his opponent when the employees “liked” the opponent's Facebook page. After he was re-elected, Sheriff Roberts terminated the employees allegedly due to staff reductions and performance issues.

The employees sued Sheriff Roberts alleging that he violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association when he unlawfully fired them for actively supporting his political opponent.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the employees' claims because the employees failed to allege that they had engaged in protected expressive speech when they “liked” the opponent's Facebook page. The court explained that without existing speech warranting First Amendment protection, the employees could not prove a violation of the right to freedom of speech occurred. The court held that “merely ‘liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.”

While this case may be helpful in the context of public employees, private employers must still be conscious of several issues including: how they obtain social media information about their employees; potential NLRB issues if an employee’s “likes” could be considered protected concerted activity; and potential state constitutional protections of an employee's right to privacy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In connection with its coverage of national signing day, ESPN.com recently highlighted that social media is increasingly being utilized by coaches to contact, recruit and gather information about players. For players, it's a way to get recruited, control the message and interact with fans and other recruits at unprecedented levels.  And, like in the workplace, misuse of the media can have unfortunate consequences. A New Jersey high school prospect recently found this out when he was expelled from Don Bosco Preparatory after questionable posts were viewed on his Twitter account.  We have noticed similar trends and similar missteps in the employment context, where social media is often being utilized by companies and employees without first being well thought out. 

While the NCAA does provide some social media regulations, online interaction is far less regulated than more “old fashioned” forms of communication. According to Gregg Clifton, Co-chair of the Jackson Lewis’ Collegiate and Professional Sports Industry Group, “The days of face-to-face interaction between coach and recruit have been forever transformed. While the NCAA limits direct phone contact and texting by coaches to recruits, current NCAA regulatory freedom still permits coaches to use social media to contact, recruit, and gather information about players they are considering for their programs.” Similarly, both state and federal employment law struggle to keep up with the ever expanding social media realm.  This was most recently highlighted by the NLRB General Counsel’s report on social media. Consequently, even for employers that do have social media policies, they often do not address key issues such as the company’s presence on-line, regulatory requirements that apply in their industry, and how managers and supervisors should and should not be using the medium. In fact, as shown by many of the NLRB’s rulings discussed in the recent report, many policies contain overbroad proscriptions that violate a variety of laws.  

To keep up with social media, some schools are hiring individuals to monitor the social media of prospective student-athletes and to make sure that improper interaction is not occurring, as well as to ensure confidential information, such as under FERPA, is not being disclosed.  Employers too are seeking to hire individuals to not only assist in utilizing social media for marketing, but also individuals who can monitor how social media is and should be utilized in employment decisions.  This is particularly true for statutes and regulations which one may not necessary link with social media.  For example, employers often don’t realize that they may improperly acquire genetic information in violation of the GINA by “friending” or “following” employees or applicants. 

Of course, schools also are employers…so, while universities and colleges need to institute effective policies and procedures to address their use of social media in recruiting, they also must address social media usage in the employment context.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many employers often question what recourse is available when faced with the destruction or alteration of company data by former employees.  This question is made more complicated when employees use their own personal computer for work. In addressing this issue, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division held that an employee's use of her personal computer to delete e-mails on her employer's computer servers may support an unauthorized access claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (“CFAA”).  

Plaintiffs, a group of real estate companies, allege that several of their former employees, on company resources and company time, founded a competing business and stole customers.  Plaintiffs claim that one of the defendants told the others to delete e-mails related to their “scheme”, and then delete them again from the “deleted items” folder.  This “hard delete” made the files hard to retrieve.  

Defendants sought to dismiss the CFAA claims.  Specifically, defendants claimed that “unauthorized access” is impossible because the individual defendant had used her own personal computer for work, and plaintiffs thus lost nothing when she left with it.  Although defendants cited to no cases, some District Courts (Keystone Fruit Marketing, Inc. v. Brownfield) have concluded that using one’s personal computer will not support a CFAA unauthorized access claim.  Here, the Court found that the CFAA appears to prohibit damaging (not accessing) a computer without authorization and the definition of “protected computer” does not specify whose computer it must be. While the Court ultimately dismissed plaintiffs’ claim as not sufficiently alleged, the Court did rule that plaintiffs may be able to make out a claim against the individual defendant by showing that she impermissibly destroyed files or other data belonging to them. 

Companies must be aware of jurisdictional nuances as they strive to protect themselves.  Stay tuned as we address similar issues in an upcoming series of posts! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Have you hired a social media manager?  A social media guru/wizard/ninja/diva?  Each of these job "titles" are increasingly being used by companies to attract individuals who specialize in marketing a company's brand and/or services in social media.  A recent article in the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times highlights just how prevalent these job titles are becoming corporate America.  

As companies struggle to keep up with the rapidly evolving world of social media, they are turning to hiring to hiring social media managers to handle their social media presence.  However, companies should be leery of the “jump first, look second” approach.  In fact, several key questions should be asked when delving into the realm of social media and hiring a new, typically younger employee with responsibility for a company’s social media existence and, therefore, its brand

Qualifications:

• What qualifications are you looking for?  Often companies seek a younger employee who is "tech-savy."  Traditional employment issues notwithstanding (i.e. age discrimination when an "older" employee is not hired/considered for a position), companies must also consider what their social media mission/focus will be.  For example, to the extent a company utilizes social media as a marketing tool, will you want your social media manager to have a background in marketing?  Similarly, to the extent you wish to utilize social media to handle client/customer complaints, will you want your social media manager to have a background in customer relations? Will you hire an external candidate who is perhaps unfamiliar with your company and its mission, or will you hire an internal candidate?

Responsibilities:

• What products/services will the social media manager be responsible for discussing/marketing?
• Will the social media manager have total freedom to explore and execute social media opportunities? 
• What policies will the social media manager be responsible for implementing?  Will the social media manager have responsibility for implementing the company's social media policy to employees and managers as well?

Training/Protocols: 

• What training will be provided to your social media manager?  For example, will the social media manager be trained on what information he/she should or should not consider when examining posts by customers and/or employees? 
• What policies will govern your social media manager’s employment?  Will the social media manager be permitted to “friend” employees/subordinates on social media or establish policies for employees to follow? 
• What safety protocols will be in place?  For example, if your company has a Facebook page, will you social media manager be responsible for maintaining the password and access to same?  How will the company transition its social media presence if and when the social media manager separates from employment? 

While the above list is by no means exhaustive, it demonstrates some of the additional considerations that must be examined when a company wishes to expand into social media.   Companies are often unaware of the need to consider these questions prior to implementing a social media policy or hiring a social media manager.  However, examining these points will help ensure your company’s social media experience flows more smoothly. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

In a novel approach to data breach notification requirements, Texas has amended its breach notification law (Business & Commerce Code, Section 521.053) to require notification to residents of not only Texas, but to residents of each of the 50 states.  The amendment becomes effective September 1, 2012, and applies to “all persons who conduct business in the state,” without further defining what “conducting business” would entail. 

The law was amended to require notification of a breach of system security to any individual whose sensitive personal information was, or is reasonable believe to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.  A review of the amendment reflects the legislature’s intent to expand the notification requirement by its deletion of the language “resident of this state” from the current data breach notification law. 

This law has obvious far reaching import for residents of the four states which do not currently maintain data breach notification laws (Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, and South Dakota).  Under Texas’ law, residents of these states whose personal information is owned, licensed or maintained by a business/employer subject to Texas law would now receive notification of a breach of their personal information. 

Additionally, Texas’ breach notification law does not include a “risk of harm trigger.”  A number of state data breach notification laws only require notification where illegal use of the breached personal information has occurred, or is reasonably likely to occur and that creates a risk of harm to a person.  However, under Texas’ law, notification is required only upon acquisition, without regard to a risk of harm.  While Texas’ amended law appears to include some limiting language on its application to states that have their own breach notification laws, as worded, it is unclear whether this would include states whose risk of harm trigger would not require notification.  Accordingly, for those entities which conduct business in Texas, notification of those affected may be required even if the individual’s home state would not have required notice in the case of low-risk breaches 

The amendment also adds civil penalties for any person who fails to take reasonable actions to comply with the notification requirements.  These penalties are compounded by the number of individuals who are not notified and for each consecutive day notification is not provided, resulting in a maximum fine of $250,000.  Additionally, the amendment makes a violation a misdemeanor, unless the breached information is protected by HIPAA, which would elevate the violation to a felony. 

Companies, especially those that maintain vast amounts of personal information for persons in multiple states, must be aware of the various state laws which potentially impact there business and amendments like those highlighted above. See also recent amendments to the breach notification statutes in California and Illinois.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

The Maryland Senate recently referred Senate Bill 971 which prohibits Maryland employers from demanding that workers and job applicants turn over their passwords to specific websites or web-based accounts. 

Under the bill, employers would be prohibited from refusing to hire applicants and disciplining, terminating, or taking other adverse employment action against employees who refuse to provide their passwords. The bill also bans employers’ threats of such action.  

The bill was introduced in response to employers’ asking applicants and employees for their passwords as part of background checks to see the content posted by the individuals on social networking sites (e.g., Facebook ). S.B. 971 would, however, permit employers to require workers to disclose their passwords only to the employers’ internal computer systems.  

This proposed Maryland law, and case law from New Jersey, should alert employers that utilizing social media in their hiring, discipline, or termination decisions is under scrutiny.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 12, 2011, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law S.B. 132/H.B. 87. Under this law, Maryland employers, except in limited circumstances, are prohibited from using an individual's consumer credit history for hiring or other employment purposes. 

Beginning October 1, 2011,  employers are prohibited from using credit report data to deny employment, discharge an employee, set compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, unless, after making an offer of employment to an individual, the employer has a use for such information that is “substantially job-related.”   Additionally, an employer must disclose in writing its use of such information to the employee or applicant.

While the law does not contain any individual right of action, it allows individuals to file an administrative complaint with the state Commissioner of Labor and Industry. The Commissioner is authorized to assess a civil penalty of up to $500 per initial violation and up to $2,500 for repeat violations.

Employers exempt from the new law include those required by federal law to examine credit history data, financial institutions, or entities registered with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission as investment advisors.

As we have detailed previously, several other states (Florida, Michigan, and Montana) are considering similar laws, while Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington have already enacted laws restricting the use of credit history in employment. 

• 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

Trying to keep up with the fast-moving world of social media, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled that “tagged” or captioned photographs posted on Facebook may be admitted as evidence. The ruling in the case has implications for employers.  In LaLonde v. LaLonde, the appellant-wife objected to the trial court’s admitting into evidence photographs taken from Facebook that identified her by “tagging.”  The photographs appeared to show her consuming alcohol in contradiction to the advice of her mental health providers—a key issue in the custody dispute.     

The wife argued the photographs should not be admitted because Facebook allows anyone to post pictures and then “tag” or identify people in the pictures and she never gave permission for the photographs to be published in this manner on.  Rejecting this argument, the appellate court held, “There is nothing in the law that requires permission when someone takes a picture and posts it on a Facebook page.  There is nothing that requires her permission when she was ‘tagged’ or identified as a person in those pictures.”  The Court acknowledged that modern digital photography techniques may allow for alteration of the photograph, but pointed out that the wife never suggested such techniques were used, instead acknowledging the pictures were accurate.

The potential implications of this holding are numerous.  As we have previously discussed, employers may be able to use social media (which arguably includes tagged pictures) to fight emotional distress damages.  Similarly, as we described here, Facebook content has been utilized by employers in disciplinary decisions.   Our Social Media White Paper provides a helpful discussion of this and other issues employers should think about when it comes to social media.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-authored with: John Snyder 

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects from judicial restraint discussions over matters of public concern, including claims of wide-scale data breaches of social security numbers and other personal information by a former employee on a blog, a New York State Supreme Court justice has ruled. Cambridge Who’s Who Publishing, Inc. v. Sethi, 009175/10, NYLJ 1201482619238, at *1 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. Jan. 25, 2011). Finding no extraordinary circumstance that would overcome the Constitutional protection, the court denied a company’s request to enjoin its former employee from blogging about the company and its products, despite his agreement to maintain the confidentiality of confidential business information.

Relevant Background

Harsharan Sethi was the Director of Management Information Systems for marketing and networking company Cambridge Who’s Who Publishing. When Sethi started working at Cambridge in July 2008, he signed an “employee covenants and non-disclosure agreement.” The agreement prohibited Sethi from using the company’s confidential information, except to pursue Cambridge’s business. Confidential information included “client names, addresses, and credit card numbers.” Cambridge terminated Sethi’s employment in February 2010.

The Blog Post

After Sethi’s termination, Cambridge suspected he was the author of a post on www.cambridgeregistrscam.com, which stated that members might be entitled to a full refund of their membership fees, suggested that members file complaints with the District Attorney and Attorney General, and offered to provide information on management personnel, including “their backgrounds,” “their life styles,” and “their prior run ins with [the] IRS.”

Cambridge viewed the blog post on May 11, 2010, and moved for a preliminary injunction the very next day. It sought to restrain Sethi from: (1) attempting to access Cambridge’s database; (2) contacting Cambridge’s “members” or customers; (3) disclosing customers’ personal information; (4) making any statements about Cambridge that might interfere with its goodwill, including contacting its employees or vendors; and (5) maintaining any blog or website concerning Sethi’s former employment.

The court granted the company’s request for a preliminary injunction, in part, enjoining the solicitation of Cambridge’s customers or disclosing their names or personal information. The court, however, denied Cambridge’s request that Sethi be restrained from making any allegedly defamatory statements regarding the company.

Cambridge later renewed its injunction request, submitting to the court allegedly defamatory statements made by Sethi after the court’s initial ruling. It presented an e-mail from Sethi to the New York Attorney General in which Sethi stated that tapes containing the personal data (including names, addresses, social security numbers, payroll data, checking account and credit card information) of 400,000 Cambridge members were lost or stolen from the company.

The court then granted a temporary restraining order enjoining Sethi from contacting Cambridge’s employees about his former employment or making statements that interfere with Cambridge’s goodwill, including maintaining a website or blog, until the preliminary injunction hearing.

First Amendment Protection

At the hearing, though, Justice Stephen Bucaria finally denied the injunction, holding that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution encompasses “at the least the liberty [to] discuss publicly and truthfully all matter of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment.” Finding that the alleged loss of social security numbers and credit card information, among other data, “implicate[] the economic interests of a large number of people” and, therefore, were matters of public concern, the court held that Cambridge had failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” justifying a prior restraint on speech and warranting the denial of the injunction restraining Sethi from communicating with Cambridge’s customers or law enforcement agencies concerning data loss.

Lessons

Cambridge provides employers with several significant lessons.

• First, it is instructive of the enforceability of a non-solicitation-of-customers provision that it enforced by injunction.
• Second, absent compelling facts constituting “extraordinary circumstances,” courts generally are reluctant to enjoin or restrain speech that may be protected by the First Amendment.
• Third, the decision raises two key points about data security:
  • Companies that experience an unauthorized access to or acquisition of personal information that they possess may be required to report the unauthorized access to affected individuals and certain state agencies. In New York, there are three state agencies that must be notified in cases of certain breaches of personal information: Office of Cyber Security, Attorney General's Office, and Consumer Protection Board.
  • Likewise, companies must take appropriate steps when employees complain about or raise data-security issues. In at least two court decisions, one in New Jersey and the other in California, employees were permitted to proceed with claims of employment retaliation upon asserting they have suffered an adverse employment action after their complaints about data security at their companies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a uniquely timed second showing of enforcement authority, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on February 24, 2011 a one million dollar settlement with a Massachusetts hospital that allegedly breached patient data.  This settlement announcement comes only days after HHS announced a 4.3 million dollar HIPAA Privacy Rule fine.  The Massachusetts hospital settlement resulted from a hospital employee who took home documents containing sensitive personal information on patients. The employee then lost those documents while commuting to work.  

While the settlement did not include an admission of liability, in addition to the monetary settlement, and submitting to HHS oversight, the hospital must also adopt more stringent privacy practices and retain an independent security and privacy monitor. The investigation of the incident found the hospital failed to implement reasonable and appropriate standards to protect the privacy of patient information removed from the facility.  Under the settlement, the hospital must present new privacy and data security administrative, physical, and technical safeguards policies and procedures for HHS approval. Specifically, these policies and procedures must address the physical removal and transportation of protected health information and encryption of portable storage devices.  Despite a general prohibition on employees physically removing protected health information from the hospital,  HHS permitted an exception when the information is removed by an employee to perform his or her job duties.  Additionally, the hospital must implement training for all employees.  

This settlement, when considered with the 4.3 million dollar fine, likely signals how HHS will approach future enforcement actions.  In light of this, covered entities must seriously examine their privacy and security obligations, including implementing appropriate policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of information.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coauthored with Jason Gavejian

California hospitals and nursing homes take note - the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) takes data breaches seriously. Since June of this year, CDPH has imposed nearly $1.5 million in fines affecting 12 California health facilities. California Health and Safety Code 1280.15(a) requires covered health facilities to prevent unlawful or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of patient medical information.

Violations of this requirement can result in penalties of up to $25,000 per patient and up to $17,500 per subsequent occurrences of unlawful or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of that patients medical information. 

In its most recent wave of penalties, announced November 19, 2010, CDPH assessed fines totaling $792,500 against six hospitals and one nursing home that it determined failed to prevent unauthorized access to confidential patient medical information. In one case, a health facility was fined $310,000:

• $60,000 because the facility failed to prevent unauthorized access and disclosure of one patient’s medical information by two employees on three occasions.
• $250,000 because the facility failed to prevent the theft of 596 patients’ medical information

The larger penalty resulted in part when laboratory reports of 596 patients were lost. In its investigation, CDPH learned that the staff employee at the facility responsible for running and storing laboratory reports, and who had signed the facility's confidentiality statement, placed lab reports in an outside locker, but did not lock the locker because the lock was not working and the locker door was broken. This staff member told CDPH the locker had been broken for several months, although he did not report it. The lab reports that were lost included patient names, Social Security numbers and laboratory results, among other personal information. 

Beyond that, California health facilities should be reminded of Cal. Health and Safety Code § 1280.15, which requires covered facilities to notify CDPH and affected individuals of “unlawful or unauthorized access to” personal health data within five business days after discovery of a breach. Late notices can result in fines of $100 per day for each patient affected, up to maximum of $250,000. Of course, health care providers also need to take into account the interim final rules, promulgated under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act and enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), which require entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) to report similar incidents.  Under the HIPAA rules, notice must be provided without "unreasonable delay."

As the number of data security incidents in the health care industry continue to mount, CDPH's enforcement activity should urge covered health facilities in California to pay greater attention to data security. As the incident above makes clear, simply requiring an employee to sign an acknowledgment of complying with facility data security policy will not be enough. Health facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes, need to continually assess their risks in this area and create a culture of data privacy and security across their organizations. This can only be accomplished through clear policy and frequent training and attention to the issue. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In another favorable decision for companies, the Maine Supreme Court ruled on September 21, 2010 that consumers affected by a data breach could not claim damages from the company unless they suffered uncompensated financial losses or some other tangible injury. 

The Maine Supreme Court addressed the following:

In the absence of physical harm or economic loss or identity

theft, do time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to

avoid or remediate reasonably foreseeable harm, constitute a

cognizable injury for which damages may be recovered under

Maine law of negligence and/or implied contract?

The Court ruled they do not. Additionally, the Court went on to state that "[t]he tort of negligence does not compensate individuals for the typical annoyances or inconveniences that are a part of everyday life….An individual's time alone, is not legally protected from the negligence of others."

The underlying suits were filed following a breach, and fraudulent use, which resulted when card holder data of nearly 4.2 million people was stolen. The lawsuits alleged the company was negligent in protecting card holder data and failed to notify of the breach in a timely fashion.  The above holding was issued when the District Court Judge who heard the underlying case, agreed to let the state Supreme Court decide whether the plaintiffs could sue the company for the time and effort put into avoiding or mitigating harm from fraudulent charges on their cards.

Two other cases are similarly instructive. In 2003 the Minnesota Supreme Court found that an invasion of privacy cause of action requires that the dissemination resulted in “publicity” of private facts. Because the disclosure was internal to other employees, and not to the public at large, the Court held the dissemination was insufficient publicity to support an invasion of privacy claim against the employer. Further, in Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp. Inc., 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4846(D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2006), the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s negligence claim holding that the threat of future harm not yet realized will not support a claim for negligence which requires a showing of an injury.

Companies and employers must be on notice of these decisions when faced with individual lawsuits following data breaches. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

All information from plaintiffs’ social networking profiles and postings that relate to their general emotions, feelings, and mental states must be produced in discovery when they allege severe emotional trauma and harassment against their employer, a federal court in Indiana has ruled. (EEOC v. Simply Storage Management LLC, S.D. Ind., No. 1:09-cv-1223, discovery order 5/11/10).

Social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and MySpace are fast becoming a hot topic in litigation as they may contain a wealth of potentially relevant information. In Simply Storage, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on behalf of plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees who claimed their employers were liable for a supervisor’s alleged sexual harassment. The EEOC requested a discovery conference because counsel for the parties disagreed as to whether the two named plaintiffs must produce the Internet social networking site profiles, including postings, pictures, blogs, messages, personal information, lists of “friends,” and of causes joined that the user has placed or created online.

The EEOC objected to production of all SNS content (and to similar deposition questioning). It argued the requests were overbroad, not relevant, unduly burdensome (because they improperly infringe on claimants’ privacy), and would harass and embarrass the claimants. Simply Storage countered that discovery of these matters was proper because certain EEOC discovery responses placed the emotional health of particular claimants at issue, beyond that typically encountered in “garden variety emotional distress claims.”

The court weighed ordering complete discovery of the plaintiffs' Facebook and MySpace account information against limiting discovery to content specifically related to the alleged injury.  It found neither alternative satisfactory. According to the court, limiting discovery to posts that specifically referenced the mental issues and harassment alleged by the plaintiffs would be too narrow, while admitting the full profiles would include likely irrelevant—and potentially inflammatory—content. The court held, “It is reasonable to expect severe emotional or mental injury to manifest itself in some SNS content, and an examination of that content might reveal whether onset occurred, when, and the degree of distress. Further, information that evidences other stressors that could have produced the alleged emotional distress is also relevant.”

The court therefore defined the relevant scope of discovery as including “any profiles, postings, or messages (including status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, blog entries) … that reveal, refer, or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, as well as communications that reveal, refer, or relate to events that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state.”

The court rejected the EEOC’s assertion that broad discovery of this kind would violate the plaintiffs' right to privacy and held that, while potentially relevant content may be embarrassing to the plaintiffs, “this is the inevitable result of alleging these sorts of injuries.” In addressing the argument that the profiles were “private” and password protected, the court held that these protections were insufficient to circumvent discovery. “[A] person's expectation and intent that her communications be maintained as private is not a legitimate basis for shielding those communications from discovery.”

This case illustrates the importance of expanding the traditional thinking behind discoverable information to cover social media. Employers, upon advice of counsel, should consider requesting information of this nature. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks