| Summary: A large retailer has agreed to pay $10 million dollars to settle a class action that alleges the retailer violated Illinois' landmark biometric privacy law ("BIPA") by requiring its workers to scan their handprints to access cash recyclers without first obtaining informed consent from the employees. The complaint further alleged that the retailer did not set up policies for destruction and/or retention of the handprint data, as required under BIPA.
|
| Impact(s): Privacy Laws - for general legal review |
| Summary: The Iowa Supreme Court addressed a convenience store company's Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy that allowed for unannounced random drug testing for safety sensitive positions. The employer took the position that all jobs in a particular warehouse were "safety-sensitive" and, therefore, subject to unannounced random drug testing. As a result, the employer ended up terminating a group of employees who tested positive for marijuana. The employees alleged that the employer violated Section 730.5.
In addressing the claims, the Court ultimately determined that Section 730.5 requires substantial compliance. An employer shall be compliant as long as it accomplishes the "important objectives expressed by the particular part of Section 730.5 in issue." Here, the question was whether the employer substantially complied with 730.5(8) that permits unannounced, random drug testing for those in a "safety-sensitive position" as defined by subsection (8)(a)(3). The court held that the employer failed to substantially comply with the statute by classifying the entire warehouse as safety sensitive; all of the warehouse positions did not fit into the section 730.5(8) definition of "safety-sensitive position." Instead of classifying based on the job functions, the employer "focused on the environment in which [the] job [was] performed."
|
| Impact(s): Iowa employers |
