Legislative Roundup for the Week of February 4, 2013
.jpg)
In addition to the many immigration-related bills that were introduced last week, legislative measures addressing password privacy, FMLA leave, the National Labor Relations Board’s authority, and payroll taxes also made their debut during the first full week of February 2013.
Social Media
Representatives Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Michael Grimm (R-NY) introduced a bill that would prevent employers and educational institutions from requesting individuals’ usernames, passwords, or any other means of accessing their social networking sites and from taking adverse action against job applicants, employees, and students who refuse to provide such information. According to a press release, the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) (H.R. 537) is currently the only bipartisan social media privacy legislation that has been introduced at the federal level this year. This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Continue Reading...
At approximately one-half the length of War and Peace, the recently published 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Thursday issued its much-anticipated .jpg)
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives by a vote of 388-4 overwhelmingly approved a one-page bill that broadens the scope of what constitutes an employer’s trade secret under the .jpg)
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) has .jpg)
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) acknowledged that the Notice of User Responsibilities and the Summary of Rights (as well as two other forms not pertinent to employers) published by the Bureau in December 2011 contained typographical and other technical errors. The announcement is important for employers because the deadline for using the model forms issued by CFPB is January 1, 2013, and some employers and background check companies already had started to use the model forms published in December 2011. Continue reading about this development at Littler's .jpg)
Members of the House and Senate introduced legislation on May 9, 2012 that would ban employers from requesting individuals’ usernames, passwords, or any other means of accessing their social networking sites and from taking adverse action against job applicants and employees who refuse to provide such information. The .jpg)
Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) have .jpg)
In its most recent effort to draw lines on the self-described “hot topic” of the “lawfulness of employers’ social media policies and rules,” the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Office of General Counsel has taken the position that many policy provisions commonly seen in employers’ social media policies violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This most recent shot across the bow came on January 24, 2012, in the form of a 
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court in .png)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has posted on its website two new guidance documents on the .jpg)
On Wednesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public meeting to gather information about the use of credit checks as an employment screening device. Nine panelists representing the views of employers, workers, and the credit reporting industry discussed the reasons for using such reports in the hiring process, employee rights and employer responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and current scientific research on credit scores and its correlation to job performance. While a number of panelists claimed that the use of credit reports in employment leads to discriminatory hiring practices and urged the agency to issue new guidance on this topic and increase its enforcement efforts, others explained the necessity of using credit checks in the employment arena, the circumstances under which credit check are used by employers and how existing protections provide sufficient safeguards against discrimination..png)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will conduct a public meeting to discuss the use of credit checks in the employment context. According to the .jpg)
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case challenging NASA’s background checks of “low risk” private contractors working at the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). At first blush, the case does not appear to be particularly relevant to private employers given that NASA is a public employer and the appeal will turn principally on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal constitutional right to information privacy applicable only to public employers. Deeper consideration suggests, however, that the Court’s decision could have significant implications for private sector employers. Continue reading this entry at Littler's 
On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the Equal Employment for All Act (.jpg)
The House of Representatives approved by an overwhelming 413-4 margin legislation that would make it easier for employers to conduct background checks on employees who supervise, educate, or otherwise provide care for children. The Child Protection Improvements Act (
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published on July 14, 2010, a voluminous Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), containing dozens of proposed amendments to three sets of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations: the Privacy Rule; the Security Rule; and the Enforcement Rule. The proposed amendments are directed principally at implementing the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), which amended HIPAA and went into effect on February 17, 2010. A careful review of the NPRM for its impact on employers who sponsor HIPAA-covered plans reveals that, if the proposed changes were adopted, employers would be required to revise their business associate agreements, their HIPAA notice of privacy practices, and their policies for responding to access requests. The NPRM also provides employers with a roadmap for avoiding civil monetary penalties. To learn more about the NPRM and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, .jpg)
As anticipated in Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel's .jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the government violates a federal contract employee’s constitutional right to informational privacy when it (a) asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year, and (b) when it asks the employee’s designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for employment at a federal facility, when the information obtained in both scenarios is to be used for employment purposes only and is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. In National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Quon v. Arch Wireless, a case with potentially important implications for private employers. As .png)
The 
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published 
The Department of Labor (DOL), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) have published in the Federal Register 
After a lengthy public comment period and legal challenges, a 