Special thanks to our guest contributors Matthew Gorman and Cristina Messerschmidt.
In this Mobility Minute, our Immigration and Data Privacy lawyers will be looking at the issue of data privacy, or lack thereof, at US ports of entry, including international airports. We will review a recent court decision that appears to further minimize protections
With special thanks to Lothar Determann for this post.
The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) introduces sweeping changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which already imposes an obligation on California employers to issue privacy notices to employees since January 1, 2020. These notices must be updated as
With special thanks to Amy Greer and Jennifer Klass for contributing to this post.
COVID-19 was officially declared a pandemic in the US on March 13, 2020. Yet, even now, as we are over six months in to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in the US, employers still continue to face challenges when navigating the sometimes daily changes in health and safety orders, updates from federal agencies, court decisions, and the proliferation of lawsuits. One of the key decision points for many employers is when to reopen, what should drive that decision, the legal risk of “getting it wrong” and how to mitigate that risk. Unlike retailers and restaurants, companies in the financial industry have largely avoided shutting down operations. However, that does not mean they have fully reopened. Where does the financial industry stand in its reopening? What should financial services companies be concerned about in terms of COVID-19 related guidance and recommendations, legal claims by employees, and how can companies mitigate these claims? What are specific COVID-19 related compliance issues unique to investment advisors and broker-dealers? We share our insights below.Continue Reading For Financial Industry Employers During the Pandemic, “Risk” Takes on a Different Meaning
As the pandemic necessitates continued physical distancing, tech companies worldwide have turned to remote working to ensure the stability of their businesses. This episode of TMT Talk explores the working-from-home phenomenon from a data privacy, tax, and employment standpoint. Join Kate Alexander, Michael Brewer, Michiel Kloes, and Flavia Rebello as they share
With a surge in COVID-19 cases in parts of the US (and some states taking or considering taking a step backwards into a prior reopening phase), employers are trying to figure out the best ways to keep the virus from spreading in their reopened worksites. We have answered some frequently asked questions below to help employers implement or modify their screening protocol to make it the best fit for their physical workspace, their budget, and their workforce.
Yes, employers can check their employees’ temperatures before they enter the workplace. In fact, some states and localities require employers to do daily or weekly checks, so check your local requirements.
A temperature check is a medical examination under the ADA, and in ordinary times, employers generally cannot require employees to submit to a temperature check. However, given COVID-19’s rise to the level of pandemic, and the CDC and state and local health authorities’ acknowledgment of the community spread of COVID-19 and issuance of precautions, EEOC guidance allows employers to check employees’ temperatures before they enter the workplace. Temperature checks are only permitted while the virus is severe, so as the level of community spread diminishes in your locality make sure that temperature checks are still permitted before you administer them.
In addition, employers can send employees home (or tell them not to come to work) if they have a fever or any of the other symptoms of COVID-19. See EEOC guidance and CDC guidance, “Separate Sick Employees.” The CDC defines a fever as 100.4 F or 38 C or above. States may have different guidance regarding what qualifies as a “fever,” with some states defining a “fever” as a flat 100 F, and employers can set lower temperature thresholds if they prefer.
We are excited to invite you to the webinar, “Filling Data Protection Gaps in the New Working Environment,” scheduled for Wednesday, June 24, 2020, from noon – 1:00 pm ET.
Click here to view the invitation and register. We look forward to your participation.
In brief
As the COVID-19 pandemic stretched across the globe, companies shifted to remote working environments and many reduced staff, all without much of an opportunity to prepare. The past two months have presented a serious threat to data security, including the most vulnerable financial data, personal data of employees and customers, and trade secrets. These risks cut across all sectors — financial services, industrial manufacturers, health care, and professional services. Recent experience confirms that an effective information security strategy should target these most-common threats: phishing, data sprawl, and employee mobility/redundancies.
How to Protect Your Company
Take a holistic approach to threat mitigation and data loss prevention in the face of increased risks. Such an approach must account for data protection, intellectual property (including trade secrets), and employment law. Here are the action items in these uncertain times to help address and mitigate the legal and regulatory risks:Continue Reading International: Initial Lessons Learned as COVID-19 Exposes Critical Gaps in Information Security
Welcome to Baker McKenzie’s Labor and Employment video chat series! In these quick and bite-sized video chats, our employment partners team up with practitioners in various areas of law to discuss the most pressing issues for employers navigating the return to work.
This series builds on our recent client alert and webinar on reopening for
2019 kept US employers on their toes. From intensifying scrutiny of independent contractor relationships, data privacy changes, and hostility to arbitration agreements to continued pressure to examine pay data, increasing employee activism and politically charged discourse in the workplace, it has been a busy year!
Click here to continue reading the US Employment Law Digest.
As we previously reported, in January, in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead an actual injury beyond a per se statutory violation to state a claim for statutory liquidated damages or injunctive relief under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA).
(By way of reminder, the Illinois BIPA prohibits gathering biometric data such as fingerprints without notice and consent. It also requires data collectors adopt a written policy and a destruction policy for data which is no longer required.)
In the wake of Rosenbach, dozens more class actions have been filed in Illinois state courts. Following Rosenbach,plaintiffs can seek injunctive relief and statutory penalties under the BIPA on a class-wide basis. Despite the flurry of activity by the plaintiff’s bar over the past several years, Illinois courts have only recently started addressing such claims. The rulings since Rosenbach demonstrate a strong commitment not to deviate from the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding.
Continue Reading BIPA After Rosenbach — A Broad Interpretation By Illinois Courts
