The fourth quarter of 2021 continued the trend of increasing regulation of the workplace by state and local governments. Although it is not possible to discuss all state and local laws, this post provides an overview of recent and upcoming legislative developments to help you and your organization stay in compliance. (Please note that developments related to issues such as minimum wage rates and COVID-19 are not included.)
Continue reading “State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q4 2021”
On December 15, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court decided a heavily litigated issue under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA): When does the statute of limitations to file suit under BIPA start to run? In more technical terms, when does a claim accrue under BIPA? In the first appellate court decision addressing this issue, Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, the court held that BIPA claims accrue each time an entity captured biometrics in violation of BIPA.
The plaintiff in Watson brought a putative class action lawsuit under BIPA in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that the defendant did not comply with BIPA’s multiple procedural requirements in deploying a so-called biometric timeclock that scanned employees’ fingerprints or handprints. The trial court held that the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s BIPA claims was five years — a conclusion mostly consistent with a subsequent appellate court decision on this issue. It also concluded that plaintiff’s claims accrued with the first alleged biometric scan. Since plaintiff’s initial scan occurred more than five years before he filed suit, the court held his suit was time-barred.
Continue reading “Illinois Appellate Court Specifies BIPA Accrual of Statute of Limitations”
A California Court of Appeal recently held that stray remarks by a non-decision maker regarding a position not sought after by the plaintiff may nonetheless be enough to defeat summary judgment in an age discrimination case in Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University.
A recent decision issued by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a reminder that not every employee who “blows the whistle” is a “whistleblower” protected under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), and that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s gatekeeping instructions to trial courts in Dzwonar v. McDevitt (2003) are alive and well.
Continue reading “Not Every Whistleblower Is a “Whistleblower” under New Jersey’s CEPA”
On September 17, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court — which covers appeals from Cook County, Illinois — addressed a hotly contested issue under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA): which statutes of limitations apply to BIPA claims? In Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (2021 IL App (1st) 200563), the court concluded that a five-year limitations applies to some BIPA claims and a one-year limitations period applies to others.
There is no statute of limitations in BIPA which has led to litigation over which limitations period under Illinois law should apply to BIPA claims. In Tims, the plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, filed a class action complaint alleging that defendant did not comply with certain BIPA provisions in connection with its so-called biometric time clocks. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing these claims were untimely under Illinois’ one-year limitation period for “slander, libel or for publication of matter violating the right of privacy” under 735 ILCS 5/13-201. The trial court denied the motion, concluding instead that the Illinois “catch-all,” five-year limitation period under 735 ILCS 5/13-205 for “all civil actions not otherwise provided for” applied to the plaintiff’s BIPA claims.
Continue reading “Illinois Appellate Court Clarifies BIPA Statutes of Limitations”
On September 9, 2021, the Second District of the California Courts of Appeal ruled in Fred Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC that trial courts have “inherent authority” to strike claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) if they will not be manageable at trial. As the first precedential decision on this issue from a California court, this case provides employers with a welcome potential defense to some PAGA claims.
Facts and Background
Under PAGA, employees in California are empowered to bring claims on behalf of other employees (and the state of California) for violations of the California Labor Code. Critically, plaintiffs need not meet class action requirements or go through class action procedures to bring claims under PAGA on behalf of other employees. As a result, unlike class actions, employers have had relatively limited recourse to challenge wide-reaching PAGA claims, sometimes brought on behalf of hundreds or thousands of employees.
Continue reading “California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of ‘Unmanageable’ PAGA Claim”