Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

What Employers Should Know About the EEOC Proposed Rulemaking on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

On August 25, 2023

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA protects pregnant employees and job applicants by filling the gaps in protections for pregnant workers under existing federal laws (Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Family Medical Leave Act). Specifically, the PWFA imposes broader and more widely available reasonable accommodation responsibilities for employers with 15 or more employees. On August 7, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) posted its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to implement the PWFA. On August 11, 2023, the EEOC published the NPRM for public comment in the Federal Register. The purpose of this alert is to present a high-level overview of particularly relevant considerations within the proposed regulations and highlight some potential pitfalls and protections under the PWFA of which employers should be aware. As noted above, the intention of the PWFA is to fill in gaps existing within federal legislation, while at the same time streamlining the accommodation process and making it less burdensome for workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. In essence, the PWFA aims to make pregnancy accommodations more accessible, while still preserving the spirit of the interactive accommodation process. Indeed, there are many similarities in the PWFA and the ADA interactive process. In addition, the PWFA...

The NLRB’s Ongoing Shift Toward Employee-Friendly Standards

by Jeremy M. Brooks and John C. Romeo

Posted in Employment Agreements / Labor / Restrictive Covenants

On August 18, 2023

The labor law landscape is constantly in flux as changes in presidential administrations continue to play a significant role in the development of rulemaking and decisional law at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”). Over the past several months, various NLRB decisions and guidance memorandums have tipped the scales further in the employee’s favor, requiring employers to re-think their current policies and agreements to avoid the pitfalls created by these recent decisions. Employee Handbook Policies The NLRB’s August 2nd opinion in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), found an employee policy unlawful because, from the employee’s perspective, it had a “reasonable tendency” to discourage employees from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision is a departure from the previous standard where the Board examined, “the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and [] legitimate justifications associated with the rule.” Now a policy is unenforceable if an employee could reasonably interpret it to restrict conduct protected under the NLRA, i.e., if the policy was enacted in response to such protected conduct, or if the policy, in practice, limits rights under the NLRA. In other words, the Board’s primary concern is whether an employee believes they cannot avail themselves of the concerted activities protected...

“Say Cheese!” CVS Passport Photo Practices Subject to BIPA Suit

by William C. Martinez

Posted in Class Action Defense / Privacy and Data Security / Privacy Class Actions

On August 11, 2023

In May 2022, a group of plaintiffs brought a putative class action against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS) alleging the company violated several provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) through its practices for taking passport photos. On May 4, 2023, in Daichendt and Odell v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied CVS’s motion to dismiss, holding the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim under Section 15(b) of BIPA. Section 15(b) of BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting “or otherwise obtain[ing] a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information, unless it first”: (1) provides notice of collection; (2) provides notice of the specific purpose of collection; and (3) obtains affirmative written consent. Here, the plaintiffs alleged that CVS required them to “enter[] their names, email addresses, and phone numbers into a computer terminal inside defendant’s stores prior to scanning their biometric identifiers.” Thereafter, CVS’s system would “check” and “verify” an individual’s facial features (i.e., whether the individual is smiling) to comply with government requirements. Against this backdrop, the plaintiffs argued this system violated Section 15(b) because it “collected and stored their personal contact data (‘real-world identifying information’), such as their names and email addresses,” thus allowing CVS the ability to identify the plaintiffs “when...

Landmark Flood Disclosure Bill Now Law in New Jersey, Applies to Both Commercial and Residential Property

by Kenneth D. McPherson III

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues / Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On August 9, 2023

On June 30, 2023, the New Jersey General Assembly unanimously passed Bill S3110/A4783, which will require sellers of real property and landlords to make specific disclosures regarding a commercial or residential property’s flood risk. The bill was amended to concur with the recommendations of Governor Murphy’s May 8, 2023, Conditional Veto Statement and was enacted into law upon passage. New Jersey was previously one of less than half of the states in the country that did not require any flood disclosures for real estate transactions. Landlord & Seller Flood Disclosure Requirements Specifically, Senate Bill No. 3110 requires landlords and sellers of commercial or residential real property to disclose to prospective tenants and buyers if a property is located in an area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a Special Flood Hazard Area (known as the 100-year flood plain) or Moderate Risk Flood Hazard Area (known as the 500-year flood plain), and if the property has suffered flood damage in the past to the owner’s knowledge. Sellers are also required to disclose additional facts related to the property’s flood insurance and flood damage history. Additionally, landlords are required to notify tenants of the possible availability of flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) is...

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer: SCOTUS to Decide Whether Self-Appointed “Tester” Plaintiffs Have Standing to Sue Under the ADA

by Mark S. Sidoti and Daniel S. Weinberger

Posted in Appellate / General Litigation

On July 31, 2023

During its next term, the United States Supreme Court will review the First Circuit Court of Appeals’s holding in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer that a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “tester” plaintiff has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if the plaintiff has no intention of visiting that place of public accommodation. In this first review of an ADA Title III case in almost two decades, the Supreme Court will address an issue that has split the circuit courts across the country. The Supreme Court’s merits decision could have significant ramifications for ADA litigation that has been wildly proliferating in the Second Circuit and elsewhere for the past decade. By way of background, a DOJ-promulgated regulation – 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii) – provides that a “public accommodation” operating a “place of lodging” must “with respect to reservations made by any means … [i]dentify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.” In September 2020, Deborah Laufer, a self-proclaimed “tester” plaintiff who has filed more than 600 federal lawsuits under...

Are You Hallucinating? Attorneys Sanctioned for the “Unprecedented” Act of Submitting Nonexistent Case Law Provided by ChatGPT

by William C. Martinez

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On July 28, 2023

On June 22, 2023, District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sanctioned a law firm after it submitted fabricated judicial citations and opinions provided by the popular artificial intelligence (AI) engine, ChatGPT. After plaintiff’s counsel filed an affirmation with the court, which was drafted by one attorney but signed by another at the same firm, defense counsel advised that he had “‘been unable to locate most of the case law cited in [the Affirmation], and the few cases which the undersigned has been able to locate do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited.’” The court “conducted its own search for the cited cases but was unable to locate multiple authorities cited in the Affirmation [].” Accordingly, Judge Castel issued an order to show cause for sanctions, emphasizing the “unprecedented circumstance” presented to the court. The court required a hearing as to whether sanctions ought to be imposed. Following submissions, it made several findings and ultimately imposed sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel. First, Judge Castel found that the attorney who signed the Affirmation “violated Rule 11 in not reading a single case cited in his … Affirmation [] and taking no other steps on his own to check whether any aspect of...

Unintentional Consequences? The District Court of Maryland Holds Evidence Failed Rule 37(e)’s “Intent to Deprive” Requirement

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 10, 2023

A recent opinion from the District Court of Maryland highlights the challenges litigants face proving intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2) when seeking sanctions for spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). In Gov’t Emps. Health Ass’n v. Actelion Pharm. LTD., et al., Magistrate Judge Mark Coulson set forth the requirements to prove entitlement to remedial measures or sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) and (2) and then applied these requirements to decide the ESI spoliation claims before the court. This blog has written extensively on what is required to trigger Rule 37(e) and resulting sanctions. In June 2017, defendant Actelion (“defendant”) was purchased by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”). Following the acquisition, Actelion migrated its data to J&J, which managed the data of both companies. On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed this antitrust litigation against Actelion alleging the plaintiff was forced to pay higher prices for one of Actelion’s drugs because of the unavailability of a cheaper generic version caused by the defendant’s blocking of competition. Soon after, J&J issued a legal hold to preserve relevant information for the antitrust litigation. The defendant’s custodians included in the legal hold were determined by the defendant’s then in-house counsel (“Thompson”). Absent from the legal hold were five former defendant employees (“at-issue custodians”) with documents relevant to the antitrust litigation....

A Dangerous Game of Hide the Ball: District Court Grants Sanctions and Reopens Discovery for Failure to Disclose Photographs and Videos of Accident Scene

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 6, 2023

A recent decision from the District of New Jersey reminded attorneys and litigants of the importance of complying with discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Indeed, the court imposed sanctions, just short of dismissal, on the plaintiff and his counsel for failure to produce nearly 100 photographs and videos of the accident scene at the center of the litigation. In Reilly v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a product liability action, the defendants sought dismissal of the complaint as a discovery sanction for the plaintiff’s late production of 81 photos and three videos that the plaintiff’s counsel took in July 2020 of the house where the plaintiff fell and the ladder that was the subject of the lawsuit. Throughout discovery, the plaintiff did not produce the photos and videos and he did not include any reference to them in a privilege log. Moreover, the plaintiff implicitly represented in discovery responses that no such additional photos or videos even existed. The defendants did not learn of the photos and videos until the plaintiff’s counsel took the deposition of a fact witness and presented the witness with a photo – one that was not produced in discovery – of the interior of the home where the accident occurred, and the witness testified that the...

I’m Sorry, Motion Denied: Washington District Court Rejects Second Try at Class Action Suit Over Amazon Alexa’s Collection of Voice Data

by William C. Martinez

Posted in Privacy Class Actions

On June 27, 2023

In June 2022, a group of plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Amazon.com (“Amazon”) alleging the company violated several statutory and common law rights through its use of voice data collected through Alexa, its digital assistant software. After the court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss, the named plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 29, 2023, in James Gray and Scott Horton v. Amazon.com, et. al., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the motion, concluding the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint (PAC) failed to allege new material facts. The PAC alleged that Amazon failed to disclose to its consumers that it would use the data collected from the voice recordings made by Alexa devices for the purposes of targeted advertising. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted, as they had done previously, that Amazon: (1) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and Personality Rights Act (PRA); and (3) violated common law privacy rights. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim because the PAC “merely repeat[ed] the same arguments the Court ha[d] already rejected.” For example, the court previously rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Amazon’s terms and conditions failed to inform them of Amazon’s use of their...

Three Large Chemical Companies Agree to Historic PFAS Settlement

by Andrew T. Alessandro

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On June 12, 2023

Three large American chemical companies, The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., and Corteva, Inc., recently announced a massive $1.185 billion settlement deal over complaints about the emerging toxic chemicals of concern known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS as they are more commonly referred to. PFAS are synthetic chemicals nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they are persistent and resistant to degradation. They have been used in a wide variety of everyday products and are found in detergents, non-stick pans, stain-resistant and waterproof fabrics, fragrances, drugs, disinfectants, pesticides, and fire-fighting foam. According to a joint statement issued by the three companies and a corresponding question and answer addendum, the $1.185 billion total will be distributed to a so-called “water district settlement fund.” The rate that each company will contribute is consistent with a January 2021 Memorandum of Understanding reached between the companies, in which Chemours agreed to a 50-50 split of qualified expenses with both DuPont and Corteva. Under the settlement, Chemours will pay half (approx. $592 million), and DuPont (approx. $400 million) and Corteva (approx. $193 million) will contribute the remaining 50 percent to the fund. As part of the settlement agreement, the three companies do not admit fault in the cases and deny the allegations. Once the settlement is finalized, which the parties...