Washington D.C. Employment Law Update : Washington D.C. Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Virginia, Tyson's Corner

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 (H.R. 1469) would, among other things, make permanent the Child Safety Pilot Program created in 2004 by the PROTECT Act. This program established a nationally accessible fingerprint-based criminal history background check system for volunteers and employees of youth-serving organizations.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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, What Do Employers with HIPAA-Covered Health Plans Really Need to Know About Recently Proposed Revisions to HIPAA Regulations?, by Philip L. Gordon.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As anticipated in Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel's blog post describing the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ontario v. Quon (pdf), the Court declined today to make any broad pronouncements concerning employee privacy rights in electronic communications using employer-issued equipment. The Court reserved expressing an opinion given the newness and evolving nature of cell phone and text message communications. Instead, the Court held that the City of Ontario Police Department did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a SWAT team member, Sgt. Jeff Quon, by reviewing text messages sent and received by Quon on a department-issued pager because, even assuming that Quon had a reasonable privacy expectation, the City’s review of his text messages was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope. Notwithstanding its narrow and fact-specific nature, the Court’s ruling still provides useful guidance for private employers.  Continue reading this entry at Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 (09-530) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with a lower court, which had found no constitutional violations. The Ninth Circuit reversed (pdf) the district court’s decision, and ordered the entry of a preliminary injunction barring the use of the forms asking the above questions for the background checks on federal contract employees working at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a federal research and development facility owned by the agency. The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) operates JPL pursuant to a contract with NASA. All of the positions at JPL are filled by contract employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 explained in prior posts, the appellate court held that the City of Ontario Police Department violated a SWAT officer’s reasonable expectation of privacy by reviewing the content of his sexually explicit text messages, even though: (1) the messages had been sent with a Department-issued pager through a service provider under contract with the Department, and (2) the Department’s formal policy informed all SWAT officers that the Department might review their text messages. In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit relied principally on a statement by the officer in charge of the text messaging program to the SWAT officer that the Department would not review his text messages if he voluntarily paid any overage charges resulting from excessive personal use.  Continue reading at Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel blog. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) takes effect on November 21, 2009. How does GINA impact employers?  GINA does the following: (a) prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based upon genetic information, (b) places broad restrictions on an employer’s deliberate acquisition of genetic information, (c) mandates confidentiality for genetic information that employers lawfully collect; (d) strictly limits disclosure of such information, and (e) prohibits retaliation against employees who complain about genetic discrimination.  Continue reading at Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published interim final rules that conform the enforcement regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to those made by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act) regarding the electronic transmission of health information. Signed into law as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or ”Economic Stimulus”), the HITECH Act, among other things, modified the HHS Secretary’s authority to impose civil monetary penalties for violations of HIPAA rules occurring after Feb. 18, 2009. These HITECH Act revisions significantly increase the penalty amounts the Secretary may impose for such violations.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Labor (DOL), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) have published in the Federal Register interim final rules (pdf) governing Sections 101 through 103 of Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Title I of GINA amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), and the Social Security Act (SSA) to prohibit discrimination in health coverage based on genetic information. Sections 101-103 contain provisions banning discrimination based on genetic information in health insurance coverage and group health plans. The EEOC has not yet issued final rules interpreting Title II of GINA, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information, and limits the acquisition and disclosure by employers and other entities of such information.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a lengthy public comment period and legal challenges, a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) drug testing regulation requiring employees of aviation, railroad, motor carrier, mass transit, pipeline and maritime industries who previously failed a drug test to partially disrobe and be directly observed during return-to-work and follow-up tests will go into effect August 31, 2009.  Continue reading at Littler's Workplace Privacy Counsel blog. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link