Employers in New York City may soon be subject to a new law, Local Law 144, that regulates employers’ use of automated employment decision tools (“AED tools” or “AEDT”) – software and other programs used to make decisions about who to hire, who to promote and other employment decisions. Local Law 144, the first of its kind law regulating these AED tools, was originally supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2023; however, because needed regulatory guidance had not been issued, the effective date was repeatedly pushed back and is now set for July 5, 2023. Final rules were released on April 6, 2023, so further delays are unlikely. We summarize below the key provisions of Local Law 144 and what employers need to know to prepare.
2023 is rapidly becoming the year of AI policy and regulation. A particular focus of regulatory concern relates to AI impacts on employees, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not sitting on the sidelines. On January 31, 2023, the EEOC held a public hearing to examine the use of automated systems, including artificial intelligence (AI), in employment decisions. This hearing, titled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier,” continues the work of the Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative, which was launched in 2021 by the EEOC. Through this initiative, the EEOC has already published a guidance titled “The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Use of Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence to Assess Job Applicants and Employees.” Below are a few high-level takeaways from the hearing:
Employers frequently seek to include confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions in severance agreements provided to departing employees. Last week, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) significantly altered the legal landscape governing such provisions, making it much more difficult for unionized and nonunionized employers alike to use them for nonsupervisory employees without running afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The decision is likely to be appealed, and we will issue updates as they become appropriate. In the interim, however, it is critically important for employers to understand the implications of the decision (see below) and to adjust their use of these provisions to limit their risk.
Privacy never sleeps in California. In recent days and as California’s legislative session comes to a close, there have been a number of significant legislative and regulatory developments in the state, each of which will likely (again) change the privacy landscape in California and, by extension, the rest of the country. For businesses operating in California or whose websites, products or services reach California residents, these changes mean new compliance obligations, some of which could require significant investments of time and resources. The impact of these changes highlight once again how the United States lacks a consistent national policy on privacy that could be set by a comprehensive federal privacy law. (more…)
On December 17, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settled charges against a broker-dealer firm for recordkeeping violations arising from its employees’ use of personal devices for business communications. The firm agreed to pay a $125 million penalty and to retain a compliance consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures relating to the retention of electronic communications found on personal devices. In announcing this enforcement action, the SEC encouraged registrants to self-report similar failures to the SEC. (more…)
It is a common story: An employee who knows he is about to leave his employer for a competitor uses his last days of computer access to download (or email himself) confidential information from his employer’s network. Once his employer discovers the misappropriation, the employee has moved on to his next job, leaving the employer scrambling to protect itself, often through a tangle of state-law tort and trade-secret claims.
*This article was adapted from “Global Overview,” appearing in The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review (7th Ed. 2020)(Editor Alan Charles Raul), published by Law Business Research Ltd., and first published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Perspectives series on September 28, 2020.
Privacy, like everything else in 2020, was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers and governments have been required to consider privacy in adjusting workplace practices to account for who has a fever and other symptoms, who has traveled where, who has come into contact with whom, and what community members have tested positive or been exposed.
As a result of all this need for tracking and tracing, governments and citizens alike have recognized the inevitable trade-offs between exclusive focus on privacy versus exclusive focus on public health and safety.