Posts

CPRA Employee Privacy Rights

Employee Privacy Rights Under the CPRA

/in /by

CPRA Employee Privacy Rights

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) is a consumer protection law that was approved by California voters in 2020. The CPRA placed significant restrictions on how companies may collect, store, use and share consumer data. In addition to protecting consumers, the CPRA also established a number of data privacy rights for employees of companies that operate in California. Employee privacy rights under the CPRA are robust: workers whose personal data is collected by their employers can take legal action when that data is misused.

To learn more about how the CPRA safeguards employee privacy rights, keep reading this blog.

CPRA Requirement: Notification and Disclosures to Employees

Under the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), employees of qualifying businesses have the right to be notified by their employers when their personal data is being collected for any reason. Additionally, employers must notify workers about why their personal data is being collected. If your employer has collected your personal information and failed to notify you in advance so that you could provide consent, then they may be in violation of California data privacy laws.

Additionally, the CPRA mandates that employees must be given very specific details about what type of personal information is being collected by their employers. Previous consumer privacy laws broadly protected employees by compelling companies to disclose certain aspects of their data collection procedures. Now, companies must specifically disclose to all employees the precise category of personal information that has been collected in the previous 12 months.

CPRA Gives Employees the Right to Correct Inaccurate Information

Just like consumers, employees also have the right to correct or delete inaccurate information that has been collected. Similarly, employees can opt out of any plans by the company to share their personal information with others. If an employee makes this kind of request, the company has 45 days to honor it.

CPRA Requirement: Businesses Must Maintain an Employee Privacy Policy

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) also strengthened existing data protection laws that require companies to maintain an employee privacy policy explaining the company’s rules and policies about personal data collection. Under the CPRA, employers must not only have a written employee privacy policy, but the policy also needs to be posted so that it is easily accessible by workers.

Additionally, the employee privacy policy must detail exactly what the collected information will be used for, including whether the data will be sold to third parties or shared with third parties.

The CPRA Protects Employees Against Retaliation

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) intersects with California employment law, which means that employees who exercise their digital privacy rights under the consumer privacy statute are protected against retaliation by their employers.

The California Privacy Rights Act Also Protects Consumers

While the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) provides explicit protections for employees, the statute’s primary purpose is to ensure that consumer data remains confidential after it has been shared with businesses. One of the main ideas behind the CPRA is that individuals should have control over how their sensitive personal information is used by companies. When a company violates the privacy of customers, or otherwise fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that customer data remains confidential, that company should be held accountable.

The CPRA officially expanded the scope and protections of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which already protected consumers against invasions of privacy involving their personal information. The CPRA gives consumers new privacy rights that did not exist under previous consumer privacy laws. These new consumer rights include the ability to correct inaccurate information being retained by companies. More generally, the CPRA ensures that consumers have a legal right to limit how their sensitive personal data is collected, used, and disclosed.

Contact the Los Angeles Employment Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Did your employer monitor your emails, record your phone conversations, or collect your personal information in any other way? California strictly regulates how companies can collect and/or share the information of their workers. The Los Angeles employment lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP possess an in-depth understanding of both employment laws and privacy laws, and we are passionate about protecting employee rights.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us today to discuss your case.

Tauler Smith Wins Terminating Sanctions Motion

Tauler Smith Wins Motion for Terminating Sanctions

/in /by

Tauler Smith Wins Terminating Sanctions Motion

In a recent employment law matter filed in Los Angeles, Tauler Smith LLP won a motion for terminating sanctions. Los Angeles litigation attorney Wendy Miele represented a media production company that was being sued by a former contractor who worked as a personal assistant for the company. When the plaintiff refused to respond to discovery requests and failed to comply with multiple court orders, our California civil litigators sought an order granting case-terminating sanctions against the plaintiff. Although courts are typically reluctant to approve motions that effectively end a case, the LA County Superior Court judge granted the motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. This was a major success for attorney Wendy Miele and the rest of the Tauler Smith litigation team.

For additional information about Tauler Smith LLP’s latest legal victory, keep reading.

Los Angeles Employment Lawyers Successfully Represent Company in Misclassification Case

Los Angeles litigator Wendy Miele represented an entertainment production company in an employment law matter. A former personal assistant for the company filed a civil suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that she had been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of as an employee. This is an important distinction because California employment law imposes different requirements on employers based on the classification of workers. The worker’s lawsuit alleged that the company violated the California Labor Code, which protects wage earners and regulates their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. The lawsuit also argued that she was entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees because the alleged misclassification constituted a violation of the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which explicitly prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”

Employment cases involving allegations of wage and hour violations are notoriously difficult to win on the defense side, especially at the pre-trial stage. That’s what makes this legal victory particularly noteworthy. In fact, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team has successfully defended three (3) of these cases so far this year. Our experienced California employment defense attorneys have also secured decisive victories for summary judgment in employment law disputes involving qui tam whistleblower claims, allegations of workplace retaliation, and allegations of wrongful termination.

Discovery Misconduct & Terminating Sanctions

The ex-worker in this case was required to produce certain documents in advance of trial, but the court had to intervene because she abused the discovery process by not turning over the requested evidence to opposing counsel. When the plaintiff committed discovery misconduct by continuing to use stall tactics and ultimately failing to provide the necessary discovery evidence in a timely manner as ordered by the court, the California employment attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP took aggressive action by filing a motion for terminating sanctions.

Other types of sanctions that the court could have imposed against the plaintiff for withholding information included issue sanctions, discovery sanctions, evidence sanctions, and contempt sanctions.

Los Angeles Civil Litigation Attorneys Win Motion for Terminating Sanctions

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge granted the motion. The court found that the plaintiff willfully refused to comply with Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.25, which deals with the case management conference and the settlement conference. The rule stipulates that counsel must serve and file lists of exhibits to be presented at trial, and that this must be done at least five (5) days prior to a final status conference. Failure to comply with Local Rule 3.25 can prompt the court to impose terminating sanctions, which is what happened in this case.

In this recent California employment law matter, the plaintiff failed to produce documents and did not respond adequately to discovery requests. This chronic pattern of delay is why the judge ultimately granted attorney Wendy Miele’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff. The end result of the Tauler Smith legal team’s aggressive representation of their client is that the opposing party’s complaint has been dismissed with prejudice. This was another successful outcome for Tauler Smith LLP.

After the ruling, Wendy Miele commented on the “salacious” nature of the case. Miele said, “There was a lot of inflammatory mudslinging of a personal nature by the opposing party against Tauler Smith’s client. We seized on the tactical strategy of terminating sanctions, which a court rarely grants but which were appropriate in this case. It was a very satisfying win for our client.”

Contact Tauler Smith LLP Today for Legal Help with Your California Employment Claim

The litigation attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent both plaintiffs and defendants in California employment claims. Call 310-590-3927 or send an email to schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced litigators.

TruConnect Summary Judgment

Firm Wins Summary Judgment in Qui Tam Employment Claim

/in /by

TruConnect Summary Judgment

The California employment defense attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently served as co-counsel with Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect in a retaliation and wrongful termination case. The firm secured a decisive victory in the case by persuading a U.S. District Court to grant a motion for summary judgment. This means that the workplace retaliation & wrongful termination claims were thrown out at the summary judgment stage without the need for oral argument.

The court’s decision can be read in its entirety here. To learn more about Tauler Smith’s victory in the qui tam employment claim, keep reading this blog.

Los Angeles Employment Attorney Robert Tauler Serves as Co-Counsel for TruConnect

TruConnect Communications, Inc. is a wireless and telecommunications company that provides cell phone service and mobile data plans in the United States, including a partnership with the federal government on the Lifeline Program that subsidizes low-income families with free wireless service. Los Angeles employment attorney Robert Tauler of Tauler Smith LLP worked with the lawyers at Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect at several different stages of a qui tam employment retaliation action.

The legal action began when two former employees of Sage Telecom, Inc. filed a qui tam whistleblower claim with the federal government after their positions at the company were eliminated due to significant market contractions. Attorney Robert Tauler was initially hired to defend two of TruConnect’s individual CEOs against the ex-employees’ allegations of qui tam whistleblower retaliation, and he successfully got that part of the case dismissed within a few months. Mr. Tauler was subsequently brought on as co-counsel in the larger employment action involving TruConnect, and now that case has also concluded with Mr. Tauler helping to win a court ruling on behalf of the telecom company.

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in California False Claims Act Case

The employment retaliation case was heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Despite having already lost their qui tam whistleblower claim involving TruConnect, the former employees still argued that they were entitled to damages for retaliation and wrongful termination. These claims were filed under three statutes:

  1. False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  2. California False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  3. California Labor Code (alleging wrongful termination)

On June 21, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granted a motion for summary judgment that effectively ended the case by dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation and wrongful termination. The court stated that TruConnect was entitled to judgment “as a matter of law,” which meant that there was no need to proceed to trial.

Los Angeles Litigator Robert Tauler Wins Cases for Clients in California State and Federal Courts

The TruConnect qui tam retaliation case represents another huge victory for Tauler Smith LLP. Attorney Robert Tauler and the other skilled members of the firm’s litigation team have earned the respect of their peers in the legal community, including judges, opposing attorneys, and legal experts. Whether it’s an employment matter, an intellectual property claim, or a business dispute, our lawyers always prepare every case with the expectation that it will go to trial. This gives us a significant advantage during the pre-trial stages, and it puts our clients in the best possible position to win.

Contact the California Employment Defense Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience handling California employment claims. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and our litigators know how to file successful motions for summary judgment in federal and state courts. If you are involved in litigation, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to schedule a free consultation.