Leaders can better manage major workplace changes if they recognize and respond to the pre-existing unmet needs of their employees.
Archives for June 2025
Your Gen-Z Workers Are Oversharing in the Office. Here’s What to Do About It
It’s good to feel free to talk about personal things, but are your newest workers going too far?
How To Support Breastfeeding Employees Returning To The Workplace
Explore how employers can support breastfeeding moms returning to work, with expert insights, legal guidance, practical tips, and mental health resources.
US Justice Dept to probe hiring practices at University of California
The U.S. Justice Department will investigate hiring practices at the University of California system to examine whether its efforts to boost faculty diversity run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, the department said in a statement on Thursday.
Ask HR: How Do I Take Initiative and Stay Engaged in My Internship?
Take charge of your internship by seeking opportunities, growing your skills, and turning a slow experience into meaningful career growth.
What ICE Can (and Can’t) Do If They Show Up at Your Business
Concerned about a potential ICE raid or immigration enforcement at your company? Here’s how to be prepared.
How to Make Your Company a Fun Place to Work
Research from Microsoft offers clues about why so many employees are now dissatisfied with their jobs. Here’s what leaders can do about it.
Supreme Court Keeps Wilcox on the Sidelines – NLRB remains Without a Quorum
On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court granted President Trump’s emergency application to stay the D.C. Circuit Court order that reinstated NLRB Member Wilcox.
Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
By: Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
By: Todd Snyder Agrees to Pay $345,178 Fine to The CPPA and Other Equitable Relief
Last month, the Enforcement Division of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“the Privacy Police”) and Todd Snyder, Inc. (“Snyder”) resolved the investigation into Snyder’s website’s opt-out methods from November 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024 that allegedly violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).
Snyder, a New York based men’s clothing retailer, operated retail stores and a website. The website utilized third party tracking software to help it with analytics and cross-context behavioral advertising. While Snyder told consumers that they could opt-out, the Privacy Police claimed that the website was not properly configured to actually allow customers to opt out. One issue was that the website’s “consent banner” would appear and then instantaneously disappear preventing consumers from opting out. In addition, when a consumer was able to reach the opt-out option, the Privacy Police claimed that Snyder was culpable of requiring an improper verification standard to persons who wished to opt out. Snyder required all consumers attempting to opt-out to verify the person’s name, email, country of residence and submit a photograph of the consumer holding official identity documents, like a driver’s license.
The Privacy Police criticized Snyder for:
- Allowing a third-party to manage Snyder’s website without adequate supervision by Snyder;
- Forcing consumers who wished to opt-out of sale/sharing to provide verification as such requests do not require verification under the CCPA;
- Requiring more identification information to opt-out than Snyder required when consumers made a purchase; and
- Requiring consumers to provide government identification documents with Sensitive Personal Information (“SPI”) which might decrease opt-out requests due to concerns about identity theft.
Take Aways
Snyder did not admit to liability for any violation of the CCPA and the full scope of the Privacy Police’s investigation and extent of potential penalties is not published in the Stipulation. The expedited resolution in the first four months of 2025 demonstrates that Snyder must have concluded that an expedited settlement, including payment of over $345,000 in fines and providing the Privacy Police with confirmation that it has developed new procedures to handle SPI and procedures to monitor third parties to ensure compliance with CCPA was the most efficient way to dispose of the investigation, legal fees and risks of greater penalties.
The Privacy Police monitor California and out-of-state corporations, alike. Any business that operates a website that shares or sells consumer information for 100,000 or more consumers should review their policies and opt out procedures to ensure compliance with the CCPA. Owners of commercial websites will be held responsible for monitoring consumer Opt-Out requirements, even if they believe that they have delegated such monitoring to third party vendors. Finally, ensure that the opt-out requirements comply with the CCPA and do not require unnecessary verification information or copies of government documents that contain personal identifying information.
Conclusion
The CCPA signifies a major advancement in consumer privacy protection, necessitating businesses to adopt proactive measures to ensure compliance. Contact Dan M. Forman, Linda Wang or your favorite member of CDF’s Privacy Practice Group to better understand potential penalties and the importance of safeguarding consumer data.
OFCCP Solicits Voluntary Updates on Contractors’ Wind-Down of EO 11246 Obligations
On June 27, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued a letter to federal contractors inviting them to voluntarily submit information about their efforts to “wind down” affirmative action programs and compliance-related obligations under now-rescinded Executive Order (EO) 11246. Contractors have a ninety-day window from the date
Beltway Buzz, June 27, 2025
The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
New Texas Law Expands Non-Compete Restrictions Across Healthcare Roles
Starting September 1, 2025, Texas will impose stricter limits on non-compete agreements for physicians—and, for the first time, extend similar restrictions to other healthcare professionals, including dentists, nurses, and physician assistants. The new rules apply to agreements signed or renewed on or after that date. Read more.
E-Verify Trends: Evolving Employer Notifications, Alerts
E-Verify is an internet-based system through which employers electronically confirm the employment eligibility of their employees. Designed to ensure that employers hire individuals authorized to work in the country, E-Verify compares information provided by employees on Form I-9 with government records. Over time, the system has evolved to adapt to
Supreme Court Rules Federal District Courts Likely Lack Authority for Universal Injunctions
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal district courts likely lack the authority to issue universal injunctions blocking presidential actions nationwide, a ruling that is likely to allow the Trump administration to continue enforcing executive orders (EO) or other policies despite legal challenges
DOL Terminates Practice of Seeking Liquidated Damages in Wage and Hour Investigations and Administrative Settlements
Most California employers do not get investigated by the United States Department of Labor (“USDOL”) because wage and hour enforcement in California is generally covered by the California Labor Commissioner and plaintiffs in class and PAGA cases, given the fact that state law wage and hour requirements are much more onerous than the federal wage and hour requirements. However, occasionally DOL will conduct audits and investigations of California employers in response to employee complaints. Recently, one of my clients was investigated for alleged FMLA violations.
Earlier today, the Wage and Hour Division of the USDOL issued a press release and field assistance bulletin prohibiting the USDOL from seeking liquidated damages in any pre-litigation investigation. In addition, these pronouncements also prohibit the USDOL from recovering liquidated damages as part of any settlement/resolution of any pre-litigation matter. While USDOL retains the right to seek liquidated damages in judicial proceedings where it files suit against employers for violating federal labor laws, it will no longer do so in pre-litigation proceedings, investigations and settlements.
The practice of seeking liquidated damages against employers in administrative investigations and settlements started under President Obama. It was discontinued under the first Trump administration, but renewed again under Biden. This is a positive development for employers being investigated by the USDOL for potential federal wage and hour violations and violations of other federal labor laws (like FMLA) under the jurisdiction of the USDOL.
If you have any questions about the impact of this change, please contact Mark Spring or your favorite CDF attorney.