Class action litigation brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is on the rise—particularly in California—after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 2017 decision applying a hypertechnical approach to the FCRA's disclosure requirements. Background checks are an integral part of the hiring process, but they open employers up to lawsuits for noncompliance with disclosure or adverse action requirements. Plaintiffs' firms are turning their attention to these cases because of the potential for statutory and actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. In our recent webinars, we discussed strategies to help employers avoid and defend these claims. View Part I's slide deck here. View Part II's slide deck here.
CCPA Amendment Update: California Legislature Approves Exceptions for HIPAA De-Identified Information and Other Health Data
On September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California AB 713, which amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to except from its requirements certain health information, including information that has been de-identified in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The bill’s enactment eases some of the CCPA compliance challenges experienced by the health care and life sciences industries by more closely aligning the CCPA with HIPAA and other laws governing human subjects research. The new law also amends the CCPA to except all business associates to the extent that they maintain, use or disclose patient information in the same manner as protected health information under HIPAA. Access the article.
Because widespread, rapid COVID-19 testing remains unavailable in many locations, universities have had to find innovative ways to implement testing, tracing and isolation protocols to reduce the risk of transmission among students, faculty and staff. There is no one perfect protocol—all universities are in unchartered waters. But there are a few key components university administrators may want to consider and address. Access the article.
Many employers who recently reopened are now facing a new challenge—employee off-duty conduct. At stake are both workplace and customer safety as well as the company’s reputation. A recent webinar featuring McDermott’s Michael Sheehan, Ron Holland, Abigail Kagan and Brian Mead covers various scenarios employers are likely to face and provides practical strategies to navigate and mitigate potential risk. Access key takeaways.
The employment and business decisions made by employers under the specter of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic are now being tested by plaintiffs' lawyers. Employers of all sizes should expect a flood of employment litigation alongside ever-changing conditions, constantly updated guidance and, at times, conflicting state and local guidance. Litigation avoidance will require a team effort and proactive communication – both internally and externally. This article outlines the types of claim that are emerging and are expected to increase as a result of COVID-19. Access the article.
In Germany, a Corona Alert App has been deployed. If a user tests positive for COVID-19, it’s entirely up to the user to share the test result via the app. Employees are at liberty to use the app voluntarily on their personal devices, but employers cannot oblige employees to use it on a private or company mobile phone outside of working hours. Access the article.
Class action litigation brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is on the rise—particularly in California—after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 2017 decision applying a hypertechnical approach to the FCRA’s disclosure requirements. Background checks are an integral part of the hiring process, but they open employers up to lawsuits for noncompliance with disclosure or adverse action requirements. Plaintiffs’ firms are turning their attention to these cases because of the potential for statutory and actual damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Please join us for a complimentary webinar Thursday, July 30 as we discuss strategies to help employers avoid and defend these claims. Learn more and register.
Employers are poised to collect health data from their workforces daily as they adopt temperature checks and other screening protocols to fight the coronavirus, triggering concerns about workers’ privacy and whether the practices will continue beyond the pandemic. “The temperature checks give employees and customers the feeling of safety and the idea that the company is doing everything possible, even if the screenings don’t protect the workplace,” said Michael Sheehan, a partner with McDermott Will & Emery, in a recent Bloomberg Law article. Access the full article.
With rapid developments in local, state and federal guidance and law, the appropriate approach for each employer in relation to COVID-19 will vary depending on the nature of their work, the industries served and their location and size, among other considerations. This article outlines what employers need to know about employees experiencing symptoms and employee absences. Access the full article.
Telehealth is no longer just a nice-to-have, but instead a must-have for patients and healthcare professionals alike during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lisa Mazur, partner at McDermott Will & Emery specializing in the digital healthcare space, is quoted in a recent Forbes article about why telehealth is here to stay: “Telehealth was already experiencing significant momentum and growth prior to this public health emergency, and its continued trajectory has been solidified by the vital role it is playing in care delivery today.” Access the full article.