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.

Continue Reading Employee Data Security Complaint Supports Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

Over the past few months, many businesses, particularly in the Northeast Region, have been focusing on creating a written information security program (WISP) to comply with Massachusetts identity theft regulations that went into effect March 1, 2010. For many, this has been a significant effort, reaching most, if not all, parts of their organizations. However, it is important to remember that although Massachusetts may be the state with the most comprehensive set of rules for securing personal data, other states have enacted similar protections, and compliance with Massachusetts does NOT necessarily mean compliance with other states.

Consider the following examples:

California. The Civil Code in California states a business that owns or licenses personal information about a California resident must:

implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.

For purposes of this requirement, “personal information" means:

an individual’s first name or first initial and his or her last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when either the name or the data elements are not encrypted or redacted:
(A) Social security number.
(B) Driver’s license number or California identification card number.
(C) Account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account.
(D) Medical information.

Similar pretections for medical information exist in Arkansas, but that information is not covered by the rules in Massachusetts. Illinois requires safeguards for certain biometric information, a classification of data also not covered by the Massachusetts regulations.

Oregon. Oregon’s Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act lays out safeguards similar to those in Massachusetts, with some relief for small businesses (those manufacturing businesses with 200 employees or fewer and all other forms of business having 50 employees or fewer). Key is the requirement to implement an “information security program” that contains administrative, technical and physical safeguards.

Administrative safeguards include, for example: 

  1. designating one or more employees to coordinate the program;
  2. identifying reasonably foreseeable internal and external risks;
  3. assessing the sufficiency of data safeguards;
  4. training employees in the program’s practices and procedures;
  5. limiting outside service providers to those maintaining adequate data security safeguards; and
  6. adjusting the program according to business changes or new circumstances.

In New Jersey, regulations are pending that would create similar obligations.

Connecticut. Without specifying the kinds of safeguards, Connecticut requires any person in possession of personal information of another person to:

safeguard the data, computer files and documents containing the information from misuse by third parties, and [ ] destroy, erase or make unreadable such data, computer files and documents prior to disposal.

For purposes of this law, “personal information” includes:

information capable of being associated with a particular individual through one or more identifiers, including, but not limited to, a Social Security number, a driver’s license number, a state identification card number, an account number, a credit or debit card number, a passport number, an alien registration number or a health insurance identification number.

Similar requirements were enacted in other states, including Arkansas, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah. But note the definition in Connecticut goes beyond the elements of data protected under the Massachusetts regulations.

Service contracts. Some states go a step further, requiring certain provisions be included in contracts between entities and their service providers when the contracts involve the disclosure of a state resident’s personal information from the owner of the information to the service provider. For example, such contracts in Nevada and Maryland must include a provision requiring the person to whom the information is disclosed to implement safeguards to protect that information.

The emergence of state mandates fueled by the continued rapid advancement and increased use of technology suggest a trend that is sure to become a fact of life for businesses operating anywhere in the U.S. Whether the technology is “cloud computing” or “peer-to-peer” software, businesses need to take appropriate steps to protect personal information maintained throughout their organizations.

959695New 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.

Whether it be Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube or the company blog, employee presence in social media is way, way up, creating risks for employers that are proving difficult to manage without careful planning and appropriate policies.

These risks can take many forms – FTC endorsement issues, inadvertent sharing of confidential company or personal information, harassment claims, blog posts harmful to the company’s reputation – to name a few.  The damage can be done whether the employee is posting at home or during working hours.

This white paper (pdf), which takes into account some of our prior posts, is intended to help employers get a better handle on these issues, particulalry in three area: (1) employees’ misuse of social media; (2) monitoring and regulating employees’ social media use; and (3) basing hiring decisions on information obtained from social media.

In another example of a medical provider facing potential civil liability for providing medical records in response to a subpoena, a federal court in the Northern District of Ohio denied summary judgment for the Cleveland Clinic and other defendants in Turk v. Oiler, No. 09-CV-381 (N. D. Ohio Feb 1, 2010.  We previously discussed the decision in Kim v. St. Elizabeth’s Hosp. in which a court allowed similar claims to proceed under an Illinois law protecting mental health records. In Turk, the claims were based in part on the Ohio physician-patient privilege codified at Ohio Rev. Code Section 2317.02.

Plaintiff James Turk was a private investigator accused of possessing a weapon while under a disability in violation of Ohio law.  The Cleveland Clinic received a grand jury subpoena from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking Turk’s medical records. The clinic complied with the subpoena and produced the records. Turk and his wife later brought suit against the clinic claiming damages for invasion of privacy, negligent disclosure of medical records, and violation of the First Amendment.

The clinic moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was required to respond to a grand jury subpoena and that Section 2317.02 was preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA").  The federal district court denied the motion and allowed the claims to proceed, reasoning that Ohio law was not preempted by HIPAA where it provided greater protections than the federal law.  The case stands for the proposition that compliance with HIPAA by itself is not enough and reinforces yet again the caution which health care providers must exercise when responding to subpoenas or other requests for medical records without a proper release.

On February 22, 2010, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) posted on its website its first list of covered entities that have reported breaches of unsecured protected health information affecting more than 500 individuals. OCR acknowledged the HITECH Act requires HHS to make this information public by posting it on an HHS website.

The breach notification rule became effective on September 23, 2009. In short, as we reported previously, the rule requires covered entities to provide notification of breaches of unsecured protected health information directly to the Secretary of HHS, as well as to the affected individuals. Breaches that affect 500 or more individuals must be reported to HHS within 60 days, and covered entities must provide this notification via the online form on the OCR website.

Of course, covered entities need to be aware that breaches reported to HHS will be made public on its site. Some states, such as Maryland and New Hampshire, have had a similar policy in effect for some time for breaches of personal information affecting residents of their states.

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.

It’s been around for a while, but could new products in the “cyber-insurance” market help companies focus on this emerging threat known as “information risk”?

The National Journal reports that for many companies online security is not a priority. Tom Risen’s article cites to a Verizon study conducted between 2004 and 2008 (pdf) that determined

75 percent of breaches were not discovered by the victimized organization, and that 87 percent could have been prevented with reasonable online protection.

Mr. Risen reports that historically cyber-insurance covered “hazards such as unauthorized Web site access, online libel, data privacy loss and repairs to company databases after system failures.” However, with the explosion of data breaches over the last 10 years or so, new, broader policies have emerged, covering costs related to responding to a data breach, such as sending notices, providing credit monitoring services, engaging legal counsel, employing a call center, and defense of claims by affected individuals and federal and state officials. Some companies in this space include Beazley, Chartis, Travelers, Chubb and others.

It may be, as Robert Parisi of Marsh suggested to Mr. Risen, that federal legislation might encourage more awareness of these issues, something we raised as well. Certainly, we are beginning to see greater attention to these issues as businesses are beginning to focus on the Massachusetts data security/identity theft regulations, which become effective March 1, 2010.

Whatever the driving force, businesses need to drill down on their data security needs and address their information risk. Preventive measures – in the form of a written information security program – are certainly necessary and appropriate. But it may not be enough. As anyone who drives knows, for example, it is not enough to drive carefully and wear a seat belt. Insurance can play a critical role in addressing risks that even the best safeguards can’t. For this reason, cyber-insurance should be considered as a part of any business’ comprehensive approach to information risk. 

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.

Continue Reading ADA Confidentiality: Drug Test Results May Not Be Used Against Applicant at Pre-Offer Stage

On January 29, 2009, I had the opportunity to attend a brief presentation sponsored by Minnesota CLE entitled, “Corporate Data Privacy & Security: 10 Legal Practice Tips,” given by Brad Bolin, Senior Corporate Counsel for Best Buy, Inc. a Fortune 500 electronics retailer headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota. Bolin is a specialist in information security and privacy law. I was curious to hear what data privacy issues were on the mind of someone who monitors these issues for a living on behalf of a large corporation, especially a company that sells some of the very devices that make data privacy more challenging and which is known for its “results oriented” work environment. Many of the issues relate to topics discussed on this blog. The views expressed were strictly those of Bolin, not Best Buy. Here were his observations:

1. Work/Life Balance.  Electronic connections are collapsing the distinctions between work and personal life. Employees expect to be connected 24 -7. Bolin quoted Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn as noting, “Technology is … a constant backdrop in people’s lives, at home, at work, on the road and literally in the palms of their hands. We call it the ‘connected world’ and, as exciting as it is, it’s also increasingly complex, and difficult to keep pace with.”

12259312. Smart Phones Part 1.  Smart phones are becoming common and are a great example of how the “limited personal use” exception is swallowing the rule. He cited a survey showing that 20% of companies allow their employees to use personal devices for work, and the number is surely growing. Bolin discussed how under the old corporate model, a company that pays for an employee’s smart phone ought to take it back from the employee upon his or her departure, erase the contents and either recycle or reuse the device to prevent the disclosure of confidential corporate information. But what about the employee’s personal photographs, “apps”, movies, contacts and downloaded songs? What if the employee paid for the device but the company reimburses the cost? Securing employee-owned smart phones is not the same as securing corporate-owned devices, he emphasized.

3. Smart Phones Part 2.  Bolin said that, whatever rules you choose, a departing employee should be able to take his or her personal data, while IT should be able to ensure that any corporate information has been safely removed. The process should be simple and transparent to all. Adopt simple rules that make corporate data on an employee’s smart phone easier to identify and control. For example, distinguish between media files on the one hand, and xls doc, ppt, and pdf documents on the other. Have a transparent dialog with employees about the trade-offs that exist cost when placing personal phones on the corporate network. For example, an employee might be required to archive SMS text messages on his phone for e-discovery purposes.

4. Texting Issues.  While e-mail typically is stored on a common server, text messages usually are stored by cell phone companies or directly on phones, and often the employer does not directly pay for their storage. Employers must have either a warrant or the employee’s permission to see cell phone text messages that are not stored by the employer or by someone the employer pays for storage, Bolin said, citing Quon v. Arch Wireless, et al. 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008),  The case is now under review by the United States Supreme Court.

5. TMI = Too much information.  An embedded Global Positioning System (GPS) feature is great for supporting and measuring effectiveness of a mobile sales force, but it raises the danger of collecting information about employees regarding the personal part of their life.

Continue Reading Best Buy Counsel Speaks on Data Privacy