Email marketers had mixed reactions to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) recent announcement of a $1.1 million judgment against a Quebec company for violations of Canada's new Anti-Spam Law (CASL). As the first enforcement action since the CASL went into effect on July 1, 2014, the judgment not only proves Canada's commitment to preventing spam, it offers email marketers insight into how the CRTC will interpret and enforce the law's requirements of implied and express consent.
Government enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) typically involves both criminal charges pursued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and civil charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Last fall, however, DOJ began distancing itself from SEC FCPA enforcement efforts — either by declining to prosecute, or by settling the matter through a non-prosecution agreement — leading experts to believe the SEC is increasing its focus on review and enforcement of the FCPA's accounting provisions.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies are on the rise, meaning that an increasing number of employees are using their personal devices to access company servers. But, with the prevalence of a new employment trend inevitably comes legal challenges. The courts have recently made some notable decisions of which companies with BYOD policies should be aware.
A television network recently agreed to pay $7.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by former interns claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state statutes. This represents one of the largest settlements for a type of action that has become increasingly common in recent years.
With the lowest monetary penalties since 1997, a 20% drop in settlement awards, half as many new suits filed and going 0-for-2 in jury trials, it may appear the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suffered significant setbacks in fiscal year 2014. Numbers may not be the best indicator of risk, however, and a successful start to 2015 — together with the kinds of cases the EEOC has in the works — should have employers maintaining their compliance training efforts in the year ahead.
In February,we discussed a case that was then before the Supreme Court in which the high court was to decide the question of whether federal law – primarily the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – compels employers to make on-the-job accommodations for pregnant employees. In a March 25 ruling, the Supreme Court decided the case by holding that employers are indeed required to accommodate pregnancies as they would any other disabilities under the ADA. The details are not quite as cut and dry, however.
Companies can take heed that they do not bear all of the responsibility of meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A recent ruling found that employees have to be open to reasonable dialogue with their employer and cannot simply make accommodation demands.
Employment is heavily regulated in the U.S., where it is illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because he or she made a discrimination complaint, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment-discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
When hiring new employees, many factors are considered. This may include conducting a criminal background check. And, if a background check comes back showing a criminal history, employers may be tempted to simply throw that application in the trash. Yet, a company can find itself facing legal violations if applicants with criminal histories are dismissed too frivolously.
The February 4, 2015 announcement of a data breach at a national health insurer highlighted the need for tighter cybersecurity measures in an industry entrusted with the security of large amounts of sensitive personal information often targeted by criminals. Four days later, New York State's Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced it would not wait on insurers to take action, but intended to implement new, targeted measures to strengthen cybersecurity in the insurance industry.