No industry or sector is immune to privacy or security issues.  This week a jury in a district court in Pennsylvania awarded $1,000 to each of the 68,000 class members who claimed that Bucks County, a county just outside Philadelphia, and several other municipal entities, violated state law by making their criminal records public, in Taha v Bucks County. Bucks County potentially faces up to $68 million in damages.

This case arises from claims brought by Daryoush Taha in 2012, who alleged that the county’s inmate search tool, which was made available to the public in 2008, included access to an online database with criminal history records for all current and former Bucks County Correctional Facility inmates dating back to 1938 (nearly 68,000 individuals), in violation of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Records Information Act (“CHRIA”).

In 2016, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Taha, holding that Bucks County violated the CHRIA by releasing criminal history records for incidents older than three years that did not result in a conviction. Further the district court certified a class of individuals for claims against the County regarding similar CHRIA violations stemming from public access to the online database.

As part of evidence, the plaintiffs pointed to an email exchange between two Bucks County employees regarding the online database, where the two concluded that only social security numbers required protection, without checking requirements under the CHRIA. The plaintiffs argued that failure to properly review state law was an indication of “reckless indifference” regarding whether the online base was in violation of the law. Under the CHRIA, punitive damages are awarded where there is a “willful” violation of the law. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the definition of a “willful” violation in the context of the CHRIA should be considered “reckless difference”, and that the actions of the County employees indeed amounted to “reckless indifference”. Interestingly, the inmate search tool had undergone several audits by the Pennsylvania State Police and Pennsylvania’s Office of Attorney General and neither found any CHRIA violation.

Although the jury awarded $1000 per individual to nearly 68,000 individuals, totaling nearly $68 million in damages, this amount will likely be slightly less as some of the individuals in the initial class certification are deceased, but no small sum of money regardless.

With the EU’s GDPR one year in, California’s CCPA on the brink, and a myriad of other federal, state and local regulations taking effect or under consideration, and Pennsylvania’s own Supreme Court finding a common law obligation to safeguard personal information, the public’s sensitivity to privacy and security issues only continues to grow. Whether your organization is public or private, whether it is part of an industry highly susceptible to data breaches such as healthcare, or believed to be less susceptible like construction, it should be reevaluating its privacy and security programs and ensuring compliance with relevant legislation.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Tampa, Florida, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the…

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Tampa, Florida, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Trained as an employee benefits lawyer, focused on compliance, Joe also is a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group.

In short, his practice focuses on the matrix of laws governing the privacy, security, and management of data, as well as the impact and regulation of social media. He also counsels companies on compliance, fiduciary, taxation, and administrative matters with respect to employee benefit plans.

Photo of Jason C. Gavejian Jason C. Gavejian

Jason C. Gavejian is the office managing principal of the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s Board of Directors. He is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy…

Jason C. Gavejian is the office managing principal of the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s Board of Directors. He is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

As a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), Jason focuses on the matrix of laws governing privacy, security, and management of data. Jason is co-editor of, and a regular contributor to, the firm’s Privacy blog.

Jason’s work in the area of privacy and data security includes counseling international, national, and regional companies on the vast array of privacy and security mandates, preventive measures, policies, procedures, and best practices. This includes, but is not limited to, the privacy and security requirements under state, federal, and international law (e.g., HIPAA/HITECH, GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), FTC Act, ECPA, SCA, GLBA etc.). Jason helps companies in all industries to assess information risk and security as part of the development and implementation of comprehensive data security safeguards including written information security programs (WISP). Additionally, Jason assists companies in analyzing issues related to: electronic communications, social media, electronic signatures (ESIGN/UETA), monitoring and recording (GPS, video, audio, etc.), biometrics, and bring your own device (BYOD) and company owned personally enabled device (COPE) programs, including policies and procedures to address same. He regularly advises clients on compliance issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and has represented clients in suits, including class actions, brought in various jurisdictions throughout the country under the TCPA.