On March 19 and 30, partners from the Employment and Privacy and Cybersecurity practice areas hosted webinars addressing issues that clients are facing as they respond to the global coronavirus pandemic. The webinar recordings and slides are now available on our blog.
Please join us on Thursday, March 19 for a one-hour webinar discussion during which Partners from Hogan Lovells’ Employment and Privacy and Cybersecurity practices will be making some global observations on employment issues our clients are facing and highlighting the specific impact coronavirus is having for employers, including with respect to data privacy.
One of the most controversial elements of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) is the establishment of an “anti-discrimination” right – businesses may not “discriminate” against consumers for exercising certain rights under the CCPA, and they will need to assess whether and how they can require consumers to accept certain data practices as a condition of service. Compliance would be challenging even if the provision were articulated clearly, but as we have discussed in this blog series, the accelerated drafting process and passage of the CCPA earlier this year left little time for public comment and responsive amendments. As a result, the law includes a series of ambiguities that complicate compliance, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the anti-discrimination provision.
This entry in Hogan Lovells’ ongoing series on the CCPA focuses on the law’s anti-discrimination clause, its ambiguities and potentially contradictory provisions, and impact on businesses.
A French Court of Appeals in Caen recently confirmed a lower court’s order for the suspension of a whistleblowing system implemented by French company Benoist Girard, a subsidiary of American group Stryker. The decision comes as a surprise as it rejects the approval of the whistleblower system by French data protection authority (the “CNIL”).
A decision by the Higher Labor Court of Berlin-Brandenburg Germany allowing an employer the right to access and review work-related email correspondence of an employee during his/her absence from work provides grounds for employers to access employees’ business-related email, even without the employee’s explicit consent, provided that the employer does not interfere with ongoing email traffic and does not access emails which are clearly private.
A new decision from the French high labor court may provide some grounds for arguing that a party in France can review a French employee’s e-mails and electronically stored information to determine whether the data is relevant to a U.S. litigation.