Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Employers Need to Know About Employee Privacy
In an age where anyone can look up almost anyone or anything online, the term "privacy" can be difficult to define. The meaning of the word becomes even more challenging when viewing privacy in the context of the workplace. Many employers struggle with not only identifying what is private protectable information, but also how to safeguard that information while also protecting the company's own business interests. A rise in remote or hybrid work situations has added another layer of complexity to this challenge. Given the increased costs of litigation, it is critical that employers understand their obligations under the law and how to strike a legally compliant balance between these competing interests.
Employee Records
Federal does not specifically regulate an employer's maintenance and handling of employee personnel records, although there are certain statutes that contain ancillary record-keeping provisions. For example, New Jersey's Paid Sick Leave Law requires that employers maintain records of hours accrued, used, and carried over by employees for a five year period. Also, employee medical records are afforded separate and greater legal protections pursuant to various federal and state laws.
Generally, however, employers should treat employee personnel files as confidential. They should be stored in a separate, secure location and the information contained therein should only be shared with individuals on a need-to-know basis. When and how an employee may gain access to this information is generally governed by company policy, or court order in the event of litigation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.