Register for Upcoming Webinar-Branding Concerns
On May 11, 2022, at 12PM CT, the latest LG Webinar will focus on branding concerns from trademark, licensing and litigation perspectives. Presented by Joseph LaPlaca, Roenan Patt, and Kevin Thompson, this webinar will focus on the issues from multiple viewpoints which should be considered when branding your company. Kevin Thompson will discuss general IP concepts relating to branding, Joseph LaPlaca will discuss common branding concerns which arise when licensing your IP, and Roenan Patt will discuss common pitfalls when branding which could help you avoid litigation. This webinar will help brand owners issue-spot these areas of concern and know when to consult with their LG Attorneys. A recording will be available later for those who register. To register, visit https://bit.ly/37pDMnK.
Branding is important to any company, but especially to startups. For a startup, particularly at the outset, its intellectual property may be its only asset. It’s important to understand how protectable this new brand may be, both as a sword and as a shield. It’s important to be able to stop others from infringing, but the new brand also needs to be safe from interference from third parties. Rebranding later on can be the death knell of a business. It’s important to consider all aspects of branding, including packaging, the website, any promotional materials, and whether or not to have a social media presence. How will your business interact with its customers? How will new customers find your business?
To learn more, please attend the webinar, or reach out to Kevin Thompson at (312) 368-0100 or kthompson@lgattorneys.com with any questions.
DOL Withdraws Guidance On When An Employer Must Pay Employee for Covid Testing or Vaccinations
On January 20, 2022 the DOL released Fact Sheet #84 containing guidance for employers faced with the issue of whether or not it should pay employees for their time spent obtaining COVID-19 tests and vaccinations. On January 24, 2022, without explanation, the DOL removed Fact Sheet #84 from its website. While it is still unclear why it was removed (likely related to OSHA rescinding its ETS requiring mandatory vaccination/testing policies), Fact Sheet #84 provided insight into an ongoing legal question facing businesses – when do I need to pay for the time my employees spend getting tested or vaccinated?
In 2021 the DOL answered several FAQs related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and COVID-19. Under the DOLs FAQs, time spent by an employee “waiting for and receiving medical attention at [an employer’s] direction or on [an employer’s] premises during normal working hours” was compensable. The more complicated issue was whether time spent getting tested on a day off and off-site was compensable. In typical DOL fashion, the answer was “it depends.” The DOL opined that the key inquiry, which is consistent with FLSA precedent, was whether the time spent receiving a test was “necessary for [an employee] to perform their jobs safely and effectively during the pandemic”. The FAQs provide an example in which the time spent by a store cashier getting tested on her day off is likely compensable because significant interaction with the general public is “integral and indispensable” to the cashier’s job.
The now-removed Fact Sheet #84 provided further clarification. Activities that occur during normal working hours are generally compensable, subject to certain limited exceptions. Accordingly, employers must pay for an employee’s time during the normal workday getting (1) tested; (2) vaccinated; or (3) screened for COVID-19 related symptoms.
For activities outside the normal working day, Fact Sheet #84 suggested that time spent getting vaccinated, even if outside the normal working day, is “integral and indispensable” to an employee’s job because it is the most effective “control available to protect employees from becoming seriously ill and dying due to occupational exposures to COVID-19.” This conclusion relied on the now rescinded OSHA vaccine/testing mandate. As a result, under Fact Sheet #84, time spent getting vaccinated was compensable even if the vaccination occurred outside normal working hours if it is as a condition of employment.
For time an employee spends getting tested, the DOL broke it down into two separate groups. First, if an employee is unable to be vaccinated due to a protected reason (e.g., medical or religious) and the employer requires such employee to be tested in lieu of vaccination, time getting tested is compensable because it is “integral and indispensable to the employee’s work and therefore compensable … given that vaccination is not a viable option for such employees.”
However, for employees that are able to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but voluntarily decline to do so, getting tested is no longer “integral and indispensable” because the employee is voluntarily choosing a less effective tool (e.g., getting vaccinated) to be safe at work. Accordingly, under Fact Sheet #84, employee’s that chose not to be vaccinated, and the choice was not based upon religious or medical reasons, were not entitled to be paid for time spent getting tested, even if required by the employer.
Given that Fact Sheet #84 was removed from the DOL’s website, it is not currently the official “guidance” from the DOL. However, its interpretation and examples are helpful in considering the DOL’s FAQs on compensability and should be considered when employers review these issues in the workplace. These guidelines do not have the force and effect of law and apply only to the FLSA. Employers must consider state and local ordinances that may impose additional or different obligations on an employer to pay for time getting tested or vaccinated. For assistance in reviewing compensability issues reach out to Walker R. Lawrence (wlawrence@lgattorneys.com), a partner in Levin Ginsburg’s employment law practice group.
Recent Amendments to the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act
The threat of the theft or accidental disclosure of electronic personal information is on the rise. On January 1, 2017, new legislation went in effect amending the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act (the “Act”) to expand the definition of protected personal information and increase certain security and notification requirements for data breaches. Important amendments to the Act include:
- Expanded definition of “Personal Information” for which notice of a breach is required to include certain medical and online account information. The definition of “Personal Information” includes an individual’s first name or first initial and last name and any of the following:
- social security number;
- driver’s license or State identification card number;
- account number or credit or debit card number, or an account number or credit card number in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account;
- medical information (including any information regarding an individual’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a healthcare professional, including such information provided to a website or mobile application);
- health insurance information (including an individual’s health insurance policy number or subscriber identification number or any other unique identifier); and
- unique biometric data generated from measurements or technical analysis of human body characteristics used by the owner or licensee to authenticate an individual, such as a fingerprint, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation or digital representation of biometric data.
The definition of “Personal Information” also includes an individual’s user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.
- Expanded Notification Requirements. If a security breach involves an individual’s user name or email address, in addition to a password or security question answer that can allow access to an online account, notice is required to inform the individual that his account information has been breached and that he should promptly change his user name or password and security question or answer, as applicable, or to take other steps appropriate to protect all online accounts for which the individual uses the same user name or email address and password or security question and answer.
- Expanded Data Security Requirements for Data Collectors. Any data collector that owns, maintains, stores, or licenses records that contain Personal Information must implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect those records from unauthorized access, acquisition, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
- Compliance with HIPPA. The Act also provides that any covered entity or business associate that is subject to and in compliance with the privacy and security standards for the protection of electronic health information established pursuant to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPPA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of the Act, provided that notification of a breach is provided to the Illinois Attorney General within five business days of notifying the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
If you have any questions regarding the Personal Information Protection Act’s application to your business or your obligations under the Act, please contact:
koneill@lgattorneys.com or 312-368-0100.
