A key issue for any business facing class action litigation in response to a data breach is whether the plaintiffs, particularly consumers, will have standing to sue. Standing to sue in a data breach class action suit, largely turns on whether plaintiffs establish that they have suffered an “injury-in-fact” resulting from the data breach. Plaintiffs in data breach class actions are often not able to demonstrate that they have suffered financial or other actual damages resulting from a breach of their personal information. Instead, plaintiffs will allege that a heightened “risk of future harm” such as identity theft or fraudulent charges is enough to establish an “injury-in-fact”.
Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.
By Philip L. Gordon and Andrew Gray on July 9, 2018
With the May 25, 2018 effective date of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) barely in the rear-view mirror, California’s Governor Jerry Brown, on June 28, 2018, signed into law the “California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018”1 (CCPA or “the Act”). The law flashed onto the scene after a concerned and wealthy California citizen funded, and obtained the approval of, a ballot initiative for a similar law to be placed on the November 2018 electoral ballot. The initiative’s backer used that approval as leverage in the waning days of June to force the California government to enact an alternative law in exchange for his withdrawal of the initiative from the November 2018 ballot before the June 30 publication deadline. The CCPA is aimed at granting individuals more control over their personal information and more insight into how businesses use and disclose their personal data.
Executive Summary: California has become the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals’ personal data comparable to that provided under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA” or “the Act”), which takes effect January 1, 2020, is a sweeping digital privacy law that creates new protections and rights for consumers’ personal data. The CCPA will grant California consumers the following rights: (1) to know what personal information is being collected about them; (2) to know whether their personal information is sold or disclosed and to whom; (3) to say no to the sale of personal information; (4) to access their personal information; and (5) to equal service and price, even if they exercise their privacy rights (e.g., businesses may presumably offer tiered pricing for goods and services, such as offering higher prices for increased privacy); and in addition, to hold companies liable for data breaches.
On July 4, 2018, Federal District Judge John A. Mendez granted a preliminarily injunction enjoining the State of California, Governor Brown, and Attorney General Becerra from enforcing parts of AB 450, the controversial new law that limited employer conduct when dealing with federal immigration enforcement. Specifically, the Judge stopped the enforcement of the California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor Code Section 1019.2(a)&(b) as applied to private employers. The Judge upheld two other sanctuary state laws and part of AB 450. The Judge stated in his decision:
The California Fair Employment and Housing Council published new regulations on May 17th relating to national origin discrimination. The regulations will take effect in just a few weeks, on July 1, 2018, and will be codified in the California Code of Regulations sections 11027 and 11028.
In its May 24, 2018 opinion in the matter of Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. (Case no. B280846, 2nd Dist.), the California Court of Appeal shed further light on the standard to impose so-called “waiting time penalties” on employers who neglect to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation. Diaz affirmed the maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” holding that an employer’s failure to investigate a change in the local wage scale constituted a “willful” failure to pay, exposing it to waiting time penalties under the Labor Code. Diaz also held that courts do not have discretion to relieve the employer from such penalties on equitable grounds.
Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 3152 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2018).
Executive Summary: On April 30, 2018, in the landmark decision Dynamex Operations West, LLC v. Superior Court of California, the California Supreme Court established a new test for determining who qualifies as an independent contractor under California’s Wage Orders. Under the new test, known as the “ABC test,” workers will be considered employees who are “suffered or permitted to work” under the Wage Orders unless an employer can establish three factors:
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), adopting a very broad view of the workers who will be deemed “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors” for purposes of claims alleging violations of California’s Wage Orders. This is a surprising decision that magnifies the risk of classifying workers as independent contractors in California, and is likely to lead to increased claims (in an already litigious area) challenging such classifications in this state. This is particularly true because the Court’s decision makes it easier for plaintiffs to succeed in getting a class certified in an independent contractor misclassification case.
Bruce Sarchet and Corinn Jackson, both with Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, discuss developments from the ongoing California state legislative session. Bruce and Corinn review key labor and employment measures under consideration in Sacramento, including a spate of bills aimed at curbing sexual harassment. They highlight numerous noteworthy measures on a range of topics, covering wage and hour proposals, potential updates to the Private Attorneys General Act, and assorted anti-discrimination bills.
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has approved an Ordinance requiring hotel and motel operators in Sacramento County to provide employees with a panic button or notification device that can be used to call for help when an employee reasonably believes sexual harassment activity is occurring in the employee’s presence. The panic button is designed to be used in emergency situations to summon hotel security or other appropriate staff to the employee’s location.
Fueled by the need of legislators to politicize the “me-too” movement, there has been a lot of media attention in recent months on proposed legislation in many states to limit arbitration and/or confidentiality of sexual harassment-related claims.
A decision out of the Northern District of California serves as a reminder that service industries need to carefully balance their commitment to client care with wage and hour obligations. A case manager at a large medical facility filed a class action claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) against the facility for multiple violations of federal and California law, including failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal and rest breaks. The crux of her complaint was that she and other employees felt pressured to work off-the-clock in order to adequately tend to a larger number of patients after “cost-cutting measures” increased each employee’s workload.
Just three years after the enactment of California’s paid sick leave law under the Healthy Workplace Healthy Family Act of 2014 (AB 1522), a new bill has been introduced seeking to increase the amount of sick leave employers must provide employees under California law. The bill, AB 2841, was introduced on February 16, 2018, by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher. Assemblywoman Gonzalez Fletcher authored California’s existing paid sick leave law.
Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the City’s Fair Chance Ordinance, an ordinance that originally was enacted in 2014 to place limits on employers’ consideration of criminal history in making employment decisions.