Under the CCPA, Start Tracking Employee Data Now
"Each piece of personal information that is subject to the breach can lead to damages of between $150 and $750 per breach," Sean Nalty, a partner at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in San Francisco, said. "It is important that companies make sure their culture and standards are focused on data privacy protections."
February 28, 2020 at 05:30 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Until January 2021, employers are not legally required to handle employee data in the same manner as consumers under the California Consumer Privacy Act. However, experts recommend scrutinizing employee and contractor data to avoid litigation and challenges to regulatory changes in California and elsewhere in the future.
In a webinar titled "Bracing for the Wild Ride in Data Privacy Regulation," sponsored by Corporate Counsel and LexisNexis on Thursday, Mark Brennan, a global innovation partner at Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C., said that while the CCPA was being crafted, there was not total clarity on what should be done about employee personal information.
"There was not, at the time, an alternative framework for employee data," Brennan said.
In October, however, Assembly Bill 25 was signed into law. The law exempted employers for one year from complying with the CCPA with respect to a person who is an employee, job applicant or director or officer. AB25 sunsets at the end of the year and employees will then be granted the same protections from their employers guaranteed to consumers under the CCPA.
Although AB25 is active for the next nine months, employees still have the option to sue their employers over data breaches, Sean Nalty, a shareholder at Ogletree, Deakins Nash, Smoak & Stewart in San Francisco, said in an interview with Corporate Counsel on Friday. That exemption coupled with the broad terms of the CCPA could lead to heavy fines.
"Each piece of personal information that is subject to the breach can lead to damages of between $150 and $750 per breach," Nalty explained. "It is important that companies make sure their culture and standards are focused on data privacy protections."
Philip Yannella, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, said in an interview with Corporate Counsel on Friday that in-house counsel should remember some of the most sensitive data companies hold in their employees' personal information.
"We work with a lot of California businesses to beef up their arbitration clauses to include the CCPA private right of action to provide some protection against such claims," Yannella said. "This can be challenging because California plaintiffs lawyers have been very creative in finding new ways around arbitration clauses and California courts, generally speaking, have been reluctant to enforce arbitration clauses."
Data mapping is one key way to track that sensitive information. Brennan said that legal departments should be partnering with human resources to see how their employee data is being used.
"If you're already going through the resource expenditure to do the data mapping for other types of data, you can tack this on easily," Brennan said.
It is unclear if AB25 will be amended, though Yannella believes it is likely it will continue past its current expiration date of Jan. 1, 2021.
"AB25 had a lot of support and there are some very good reasons not to extend all consumer rights to employees under the CCPA. My hunch is that the employee carve-out will be extended beyond 2021, and perhaps permanently," Yannella said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Newly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Major Plaintiff Victories: Women's Health Care Gets Expensive in Court
6 minute readAttorney Claims Phila. Roundup Trial Schedule Has Given 'Unfair' Preference to Certain Firms
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 2Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 3HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 4'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 5Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250