Technology: 4 important issues to address in the brave new work world of BYOD programs
Across America, corporations are allowing employees to use personal devices to perform work and access corporate networks.
November 30, 2012 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Across America, corporations are allowing employees to use personal devices to perform work and access corporate networks. These initiatives, commonly known as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs, are being driven by factors such as purported cost savings (companies can buy or lease fewer computers if employees use personal devices for work) and greater employee choice (rather than being forced to use a standard company-issued computer, an employee can use a personal device more suited to his work habits). However, before implementing a BYOD program, companies need to understand and address certain legal issues.
1. Employer liability
Employers may have legal liability arising out of an employee's use of a personal device in the work place, particularly if that device can access the employer's network or Internet services. For instance, if employees use their personal devices to harass fellow employees based on certain protected characteristics (e.g., race, sex, disability or age), an employer may be liable if it fails to take steps to stop the harassment. Even more concerning, one New Jersey court has ruled that an employer may have liability in connection with an employee's use of workplace technology to access child pornography.
2. Employer monitoring/Employee privacy
Since employers may have liability associated with the use of their technology systems, they have a legitimate need (and likely a duty) to monitor access to those systems, including employee access through personal devices.
Prior to implementing a monitoring regime as part of a BYOD program, employers should recognize that both federal and state laws give employees a degree of privacy in their computers and electronic communications. For instance, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act criminalizes intentional, unauthorized access to computers in certain instances. Certain state laws also grant individuals a measure of privacy in their computers and electronic communications.
3. Data protection concerns
Federal data protection laws applicable to certain industries and business sectors, such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley (financial services) and HIPAA (health care), require companies to take steps to safeguard sensitive data. In addition, some states, such as California, have laws requiring businesses to maintain reasonable security procedures to protect personal information. A company needs to be mindful of its legal obligations to safeguard protected data in connection with operating a BYOD program.
4. Litigation issues
Federal and state civil procedure rules require litigants responding to discovery requests to produce information (including electronic documents) in the litigant's “possession, custody, or control.” If an employer allows its employees to use personal devices to perform work, the employer may be deemed to have “control” over documents on the employee's personal device. The employer may then have an obligation to preserve and produce those documents in litigation.
Recommendations
The above list comprises just some of the issues facing companies implementing BYOD programs. To manage these issues, companies should implement a BYOD policy and/or terms of use that employees would be required to agree to prior to participating in the program. The policy/terms of use would, among other things, inform the employee that:
- The employee cannot use her device to harass or discriminate against others or engage in criminal conduct
- The employee should not store company proprietary data or data regarding customers or fellow employees on her device
- The employee must cooperate in any legal proceedings or investigations, and such cooperation may include preserving and producing files located on the employee's device
- The employee's personal device may be monitored if it is used to access the company's network
In addition to having a robust BYOD policy and/or terms of use, a company should consider implementing technology solutions that limit an employee's ability to either store sensitive data on his personal device or to use that personal device to access sensitive database systems that contain data covered by federal or state data protection laws.
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 All2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Pennsylvania Judge Sylvia Rambo Dies at 88
- 2Alston & Bird Matches Market Rate for Associate Bonuses
- 3Commentary: Freedom's Just Another Word
- 4Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 5First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
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