New Employee Privacy Law in Virginia Goes Into Effect July 2013
By Thomas Flaherty and Rebecca Roche
Virginia has enacted a new law that is intended to enhance employee protections, particularly during union organizing drives in the Commonwealth. Effective July 1, 2013, the law limits those situations in which an employer may be required to disclose certain information to third parties about current and former employees. Delegate Barbara Comstock, who spearheaded this law, calls it “...a victory for the rights of workers and for protecting employees in the workplace.”
The bill, entitled “Keeping Employees’ Emails and Phones (KEEP) Secure Act,” carries the title and tracks the language of a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in February 2012 by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL), which would have prevented the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB or Board) from implementing a rule requiring employers to provide to a union or the Board employee telephone numbers or email addresses. The federal bill did not pass. The Virginia law provides that employers cannot be “required to release, communicate, or distribute” to third parties personal identifying information (defined as home and mobile telephone numbers, email addresses, shift times and work schedules) about current or former employees, unless required by federal or state law, ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction, required pursuant to a warrant, or required by a subpoena or discovery in a civil case. These exceptions may largely swallow the rule, particularly if the NLRB changes the election procedures under the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA) to include, among other things, a requirement that employers disclose employees’ phone numbers and email addresses to labor organizations once an election has been ordered.
The number of states enacting social media password protection laws has risen once again, as such legislation continues to gain traction across the country. On May 1, 2013, Colorado’s General Assembly became the ninth legislature to submit a bill to its governor restricting an employer’s ability to access the personal social media accounts of employees and applicants. The other states are Arkansas, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Compared to several of the more recent social media protection laws, such as
New Jersey is expected to shortly join
Following the lead of Maryland and Illinois, California’s legislature, last week, sent to the governor for signature the nation’s third “password protection” law. Unlike the Maryland and Illinois laws,
On August 14, 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill intended to reduce the risk of identity theft by generally prohibiting private entities from requesting or requiring an individual to provide the SSN in connection with almost any activity. The law,
When the photographs and videos flooding social media include images of patients or the victims of an accident or crime, it gives human resources professionals, compliance officers and in-house employment counsel at health care facilities heartburn and forces them to spring into action. In the past several years, dozens of snap-happy health care workers have been fired for using smartphones to photograph patients and then upload the images to their social media page. One startling illustration of this phenomenon occurred when emergency room workers and staff at a medical center in California photographed an urgent care patient’s gruesome stab wounds and posted the photos on the web. In another example, an Oregon nursing assistant received an eight-day prison sentence after posting graphic photographs of nursing home residents on her social media site. Given these types of stories, it is not surprising that, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers
With last week’s approval by Illinois’ Senate of a House bill entitled, “The Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act,” Illinois (assuming the Governor signs the bill) will soon become the second state, joining
On August 31, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed
Effective October 1, 2011, employers in Connecticut will face new restrictions on the use of credit reports regarding current or prospective employees as a result of the recent enactment this month of Connecticut Public Act 11-223. In enacting the new law, Connecticut becomes the sixth state limiting employers' use of credit reports, following Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Maryland. Similar laws are pending in several other states and at the federal level. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is also conducting related investigations and pursuing at least one disparate impact claim based on the use of credit reports. Thus, employers who use credit history information to inform hiring or personnel decisions in states that have enacted credit check laws should review their policies for compliance, and employers everywhere should continue to monitor developments in this evolving area of the law. To learn more about the Connecticut law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP,
When
With the first anniversary of the Massachusetts Data Security Regulations,
Recently enacted legislation in Massachusetts will significantly affect employers’ use of criminal history information for employment purposes. While most provisions of the
Last week, Oregon joined a growing national trend, apparently in response to the recession and the foreclosure crisis, that restricts the ability of employers to use credit history in employment decisions. Under the
Touted as the most stringent information security regulations to date, Massachusetts’ requirements—applicable to both customer and employee personal information—mandate the implementation of a comprehensive written information security program. As explained in
Identity theft is a booming business. Each year, millions of Americans fall victim to identity theft or have their personal privacy otherwise compromised through unlawful means. Whether it comes in the form of a lost or stolen credit card, or computer hackers accessing social security numbers from employment records, financial institutions, medical records, or government agencies, the costs are staggering. Studies demonstrate that victims spend anywhere from a few hours to, in some cases, literally thousands of hours working to repair damage done by identity theft. Investigations related to identity theft often take months – or sometimes years – to resolve.
In response to the 