Category: Privacy

New Fair Credit Reporting Act – Summary of Rights Forms

New Fair Credit Reporting Act – Summary of Rights Forms

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Federal agency that administers the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), just issued new Summary of Rights forms. An employer conducting a background check on an employee or applicant through a consumer reporting agency must provide such employee or applicant a Summary of Rights notice when first obtaining consent to conduct the background check — together with a written disclosure about the use of the background check — and when taking adverse action based on the background check. Starting today, September 21, 2018, the new Summary of Rights form must be used. The CFPB also issued forms called Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights that must be provided to consumers by credit reporting agencies when the subject of an identity theft. A new law also requires credit reporting agencies to implement a “national security freeze” at no cost to a consumer that restricts prospective lenders from access to a consumer’s credit report. Other changes include a one year (instead of 90 days) notification of a fraud alert in a consumer’s file. The notification informs a lender that the consumer may have been the victim of identity theft, for which the lender must take additional...

New Connecticut Law Passed to Protect Employee Online Privacy 0

New Connecticut Law Passed to Protect Employee Online Privacy

Effective October 1, 2015, employers in the State of Connecticut are restricted from requiring or requesting employees and job applicants to provide access to “personal online accounts,” which include email, social media and retail-based Internet web sites used exclusively for personal reasons. Specifically, the new law (Public Act No. 15-6) (“the Act”), prohibits employers from requesting or requiring employees or job applicants to: provide the username and password, password, or other means of authentication to access an individual’s personal online account; authenticate or access a personal online account for the employer to view; or invite an employer to accept an invitation or be compelled to accept an invitation from an employer to join a group related to a personal online account.

NYC Law Limiting Employer Use of Credit Checks Signed by Mayor 0

NYC Law Limiting Employer Use of Credit Checks Signed by Mayor

On May 6, 2015, New York City Mayor, Bill De Blasio, signed legislation proposed by the City of New York likely to limit an employer’s ability to use credit checks when making hiring and retention decisions. The law goes into effect 120 days from May 6, 2015, or on September 3, 2015. We analyzed the new law in detail in a recent blog.

NYC Law Expected To Change Employer Use of Credit Checks 0

NYC Law Expected To Change Employer Use of Credit Checks

The City of New York likely will tighten the reins on an employer’s ability to use credit checks when making hiring and retention decisions. The City Council approved a bill that would amend the New York City Human Rights Law, § 8-102 et seq. (“NYCHRL”) to prohibit an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or their agents from using an applicant’s or employee’s “consumer credit history” for employment purposes or to otherwise discriminate against an applicant or employee based on consumer credit history. If the legislation is signed by the Mayor – on whose desk the proposed bill now sits – it will go into effect within 120 days after the Mayor signs.

Governor Christie Signs Legislation Protecting Social Networking Accounts of Employees 0

Governor Christie Signs Legislation Protecting Social Networking Accounts of Employees

On August 29, 2013, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill that prohibits most employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to disclose user names and passwords for social networking accounts like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. The new law, which goes into effect December 1, 2013, makes New Jersey the 13th state to enact legislation protecting the social networking accounts of employees. The Gibbons Employment Law Alert previously covered the proposed bill before it became law.

A New Jersey Federal Court Holds that the Stored Communications Act Applies to “Wall Posts” on Facebook 0

A New Jersey Federal Court Holds that the Stored Communications Act Applies to “Wall Posts” on Facebook

The Federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“SCA”), makes it unlawful to, among other things, “intentionally access[] without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided.” Violators are subject to imprisonment and fines, and the statute expressly authorizes a civil action for damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. A federal court in New Jersey has now held that the statute may apply to those who access information posted by a Facebook account holder on his or her Facebook “wall.” The defendant-employer in the case, Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (“MONOC”), was able to avoid liability under the SCA because the plaintiff could not establish that her employer violated the “without authorization” component of the statute. Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. But the case puts employers on notice that they must tread carefully in this area.

Gov. Christie Issues Conditional Veto of Social Networking Privacy Bill 0

Gov. Christie Issues Conditional Veto of Social Networking Privacy Bill

On Monday, May 5, 2013, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie issued a conditional veto of Assembly Bill No. 2878, the controversial piece of proposed legislation that sought to bar most employers from requiring current or prospective employees to provide user names or passwords to social networking accounts and from inquiring as to whether current or prospective employees even had social networking accounts.

Federal Government Taking More Steps to Protect Trade Secrets 0

Federal Government Taking More Steps to Protect Trade Secrets

The federal government continues to take aim at those who violate trade secrets rights. On December 28, 2012, the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 (S. 3642) became law, expanding the definition of trade secrets under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA). In addition, as previously reported in a Gibbons IP Law Alert blog, the President is expected to sign legislation recently passed by Congress that triples the damages for a violation of trade secrets protection laws and provides technical changes to patent applications and protections. Also worthy of note is an 82-page report from the U.S. Department of Justice issued last month detailing federal enforcement efforts concerning trade secrets theft.

Taking Over Former Employee’s LinkedIn Account Not a Violation of Federal Law, According to Pennsylvania District Court 0

Taking Over Former Employee’s LinkedIn Account Not a Violation of Federal Law, According to Pennsylvania District Court

A Pennsylvania Federal District Court has decided that an employer did not violate the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) or the Federal Lanham Act, when it took control of a departed employee’s LinkedIn account. The Court ruled that (1) the CFAA, which in part prohibits unauthorized access to a computer with the intent to defraud, did not come into play and (2) no trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act had occurred.

Recent New Jersey Law Division Decision Highlights Importance of Making Government Records Requests Under Both OPRA and the Common Law 0

Recent New Jersey Law Division Decision Highlights Importance of Making Government Records Requests Under Both OPRA and the Common Law

The right of public access to information about sexual harassment claims brought against a public entity is the focus of a recent decision of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Atlantic County). The decision illustrates the interplay between the common law right of access to government records and the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”), as well as the importance of making a request for a government record under both.