Unfettered Employee Tracking May Be Approaching Its Twilight
The CCPA could potentially open the door to more protections surrounding employee data, which up until now hasn't been governed as tightly as consumer information. But don't expect a national law any time soon.
October 21, 2019 at 09:30 AM
3 minute read
While privacy regulations like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have imposed comprehensive restrictions around the ways businesses treat consumer data, they are leaving employee information relatively untouched.
Times, though, may be changing. Following a one-year moratorium, employee data will officially fall subject to the protections afforded other types of personal data under the forthcoming California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). The switch could potentially trigger a whole new set of complications for employers making use of advanced technologies to track employee productivity in the office.
Jarno Vanto, a partner at Crowell & Morning, expects that some companies will have to rethink that strategy.
"I think that's going to force companies to rethink how they are using those tools. They might be moving away from more personally identifying stuff to more aggregate tracking," Vanto said.
While the CCPA doesn't officially kick in until January, many of those tracking tools—aggregate or not—have already arrived. An article published by USA Today earlier this month claimed that by 2020, 80% of businesses will be monitoring employees "using a range of tools and data sources."
Examples range from the simple (email account log-in times) to more advanced applications like the use of web cams to track an employee's facial expressions. And as of right now, most of those activities are probably in the clear depending on what state an employer calls home.
Christopher Ballod, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, indicated that in the U.S. there has typically been a recognition that employee data is different from other types of personal information. That, coupled with the fact that employees are typically using an employer's resources to accomplish their work, tends to give a company a great deal of latitude.
"The key to understanding how the law is going to work here is that privacy and employment are real different concepts, and as an employee you're giving up a whole lot of rights," Ballod said.
Still, California workers are due to get some of those rights back once the clock runs out on the CCPA's one-year exemption on employee information.
When that happens, Vanto thinks employers may be forced to limit the scope of their tracking tools to an aggregate rather than person-by-person view. For example, instead of facial recognition tech being used to decipher the mood of one John Doe, it could be leveraged as a more general barometer of morale officewide.
Meanwhile, employers scattered across other states in the country shouldn't expect to see a uniform national standard on the books any time soon. Myriah Jaworski, an attorney with Beckage, expects that in the future, the processing of employee data will continue to be regulated piecemeal by local employment laws.
"[Employers] will have a host of legal obligations to sort through regarding employee privacy," Jaworski said.
Still, there's a chance that yet another set of patchwork laws to contend with may not come as such a burden to companies. Whereas the emergence of various jurisdictional privacy regulations was a relatively new obstacle for businesses to contend with, employment laws are a more familiar consideration.
"Employment law is by its nature inherently state specific," Vanto said. "So it could be that [companies] give broader rights in California versus, say, their Texas employees."
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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