Source: https://www.csklegal.com/tck_news/2011/09/?post_type=tck_news
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:14:06+00:00

Document:
Federal and state employment laws are unique and complex. Employees are filing EEOC Charges in record numbers. Thus, it is important for employers to be knowledgeable about the substantive law, while remaining proactive as to preventing such claims from being filed. Employers should ensure that they have internal policies in place to deal with claims of discrimination. Management training and labor posters are also an essential element of prevention.
Financial institutions are required by the GLBA to “establish appropriate standards” to safeguard customer’s personal financial information, in order: “(1) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information; (2) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records; and (3) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.” If the required skill set is not present within the company’s staff, then an IT consultancy to help with all aspects of your business technology security is needed. You cannot in this day and age expect to survive online without the constant attention of experts in that field.
The Plaintiffs argued that their claims were not barred by the economic loss rule because they experienced property damage in that the compromised credit cards could no longer be used and that card verification codes were lost. The court disagreed with Plaintiffs’ position on the basis that the cost of replacement cards is an economic loss, and dismissed the negligence count.12 Thus, to the extent the state recognizes the economic loss doctrine, actions based upon the theory of negligence per se may be disposed of at the Motion to Dismiss stage.
Thus, potential exposure for businesses in failing to implement security measures could entail significant monetary settlements/damages, as well as significant costs in implementing security plans that are likely more stringent than if implemented without the intervention of lawsuits and settlements. The aforementioned discussion demonstrates the potential exposure to lawsuits, damages, and settlements under the emerging cyber security laws, and highlights the importance of proactively implementing security measures to protect not only consumer nonpublic information, but the time and resources of all involved.
3 16 C.F.R. §314, Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information; Final Rule.
6 See 15 U.S.C. §6805; Dunmire v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 475 F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (“[n]o private right of action exists for an alleged violation of the GLBA”); Lentz v. Bureau of Med. Econ. (In re Lentz), 405 B.R. 893, 899 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2009) (“courts have consistently held there is no private right of action created by Congress in the GLBA”); French v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs. (In re French), 401 B.R. 295, 310 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2009) (“[by its very terms, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act does not provide a private right of action”).
7 15 U.S.C. § 6805(a).
8 See Nicholas Homes, Inc. v. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 1759453 (D.Ariz., Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Court agrees that, although the GLBA does not provide for a private cause of action, it also does not preclude a common law cause of action.”), and Basham v. Pacific Funding Group, 2010 WL 2902368 (E. D.Cal., July 22, 2010) (“[T]he violation of a statute can be used to satisfy an element of a negligence cause of action.”).
9 Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., Inc., No. CIV. 05-668 RHK/JSM, 2006 WL 288483, at *4 (D. Minn., Feb. 7, 2006).
10 In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-10162-WGY (D. Mass., Dec. 18, 2007).
13 Tara M. Desautels and John L. Nicholson, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, TJ Maxx Settlement Requires Creation of Information Security Program and Funding of State Data Protection and Prosecution Efforts (2009), http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/Publications/7F4F43B367B5276B0CFA6D13CFF4044C.pdf.
In Jupiter Medical Center, Inc. v. Visiting Nurse Association of Florida (full case here), the Appellant brought the action to vacate an arbitral award on the ground that it was based on an illegal contract. The trial court did not address the issues of the contract’s legality, and entered an order enforcing the arbitral award. The Fourth District Court reversed and remanded the decision of the trial court, because Florida courts cannot enforce an illegal contract.
It was argued that because the parties had gone through arbitration, section 682.13(1) of the Florida Statutes, provided the only five circumstances under which a court will vacate an arbitral award–and the list does not include illegality. The Fourth District Court made it clear that while an arbitrator may not be able to determine that a contract is illegal, an arbitrator cannot order a party to perform an illegal act. Therefore, the analysis of the arbitral award on a contract that is allegedly illegal should be treated no differently.
In Jones v. Basha, the Second District addressed Landlord/Owner Liability in the negligent security context. This case involved a carjacking, which occurred in arguably an area considered to be the “Common Area.” The court terms the parking lot, where the carjacking occurred, outside the store as “public access to the store,” as opposed to being part of the demised portions of the building that were actually purchased by the store. Therefore, although the landlord owned the asphalt where the plaintiff was allegedly attacked, the Landlord, and/or its employees, did not venture over into the subject area, for any type of control purpose–to hold the landlord liable.
Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board’s new notice requirement (found here), every employer, subject to the National Labor Relations Act, must conspicuously post notices to employees informing of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Failing to post the required notice may be considered an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
In Jeffrey Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., the Plaintiff filed a proposal for settlement that provided in part that “This proposal for settlement encompasses all damages and expenses associated with this claim even those damages or expenses as to which collateral source payments have been made,” and that plaintiff “will execute a full release of liability in favor of Publix Supermarkets, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and it’s [sic] affiliated insurance company, and the stipulation for voluntary dismissal.” There was no further summary of the release included, nor was a copy of the proposed release attached to the proposal.
The trial court noted that “everybody understands was being released and who isn’t,” it ultimately concluded that it was constrained by the decision of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Papouras v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., 940 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Accordingly, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for fees, pursuant to his proposal for settlement, because the release was neither summarized nor attached to the proposal for settlement.
The Fourth District determined that, under these particular set of facts, the proposal for settlement was not ambiguous as this was the only claim existing between the parties, and there were no other parties remaining potentially liable–so that such other claims might not be extinguished by release.

References: §314
 §6805
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6805
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.