Recently, Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. Commonly referred to as “ban the box” legislation, it prohibits Illinois employment agencies and private employers, with 15 or more employees, from prescreening applicants over a criminal record or history. Under the new law, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2015, employers and employment agencies cannot ask applicants to disclose information as to whether they have been convicted of a crime, or conduct a background check on applicants, during the initial application process. Employers and employment agencies are further required to change their application forms to remove any questions or boxes that ask the applicant about a criminal background. Employers who are prohibited by state or federal law to hire an applicant with a specific type of conviction are allowed to ask whether an applicant has been convicted of that crime. If applicants would need to obtain a standard fidelity bond as part of their employment, the employer can ask them whether they have been convicted of crimes that would prevent their approval for such a bond. Additionally, Emergency Medical Services Systems Act employers are allowed to inquire about an applicant’s criminal history or conviction. Employers who fall under these conditions may inform applicants in writing that they are not eligible for employment due to policy or existing law. Once applicants have been invited in for an interview or a position is officially offered to them, employers do have the right to inquire about whether they have a criminal background or conviction. Employers should examine their hiring processes to ensure that they comply with the new law and will face civil penalties from the Illinois Department of Labor if they violate the act. These penalties include the following: First violation – written warning and 30 days to correct the violation Second violation or failure to comply with the law from a first violation – civil penalty up to $500. Third violation or failure to comply with the law from a first violation within 60 days – civil penalty up to $1,500 Additional violations or failure to comply with the law from a first violation within 90 days – additional civil penalties of $1,500 each 30 days that the employer fails to comply The Illinois Department of Labor also has the right to file a civil action against employers in order to collect these penalties. It[READ MORE…]
In the past, lawyers for multiple small companies have accused search engine giant, Google Inc., of stealing and profiting from their clients’ trade secrets. In the case of VSL Communications, lawyers claim that Google did the same thing and left a paper trail of Post-it notes as evidence. London-based VSL Communications is accusing Google of stealing its proprietary method for shrinking video and audio files without any sacrifice in sound or image quality. The suit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court this past month, claims that Google used those trade secrets to enhance all of its streaming and downloading technology including YouTube, Google Play and Google Earth. The complaint alleges that Google coerced VSL into handing over trade secret information. A Google executive contacted VSL’s CEO to discuss the possibility of buying VSL’s video streaming and downloading technology. Google signed a nondisclosure agreement and VSL then provided the Google team with three CDs that contained working versions of its technology, 400 files and photocopies of additional VSL trade secrets as well as charts comparing the VSL technology with that of its competitors’. The complaint states that VSL did not know that”… behind the scenes, Google had devised a scheme to steal the VSL trade secrets and incorporate them into Google’s own products without compensating VSL for their use.” After discussions between the two companies came to a standstill over eight months later, VSL decided the deal was not going to go through and asked Google to return its intellectual property. Google returned the disks but the files and material were now covered with Post-it notes that contained information including the following: Google employees should delete any incriminating emails Google was concerned over the possibility of infringement regarding products in development Engineers at Google should “close eyes to existing IP” Google needed to speak with outside counsel about a non-infringement opinion Google should consider infringement lawsuit risk Concern over recklessness label on its infringement The complaint alleges that Google began to amend its preexisting patent applications and file new applications using VSL’s technology. In early 2012, VSL noticed that Google’s software showed significant improvement after VSL had provided access to its files and, upon examination, VSL staff found that VSL technology had been used in the company’s publicly available code. The complaint states that “Defendants’ theft of VSL’s trade secrets pervades virtually every website and[READ MORE…]
Over the last year, retailers have experienced data breaches that compromised consumer’s private credit card and debit card information. The list includes CVS, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, Shaws, Sears, Supervalu Inc., Target and Walgreens. When Target Corporation announced earlier this year that as many as 110 million customers’ credit and customer records had been hacked during the 2013 holiday season, retailers took immediate action to upgrade and protect their systems. Within days of the announcement, states filed would-be class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers, alleging that Target was negligent in protecting card information. At the beginning of August the first consolidated class action was filed against the retail giant on behalf of thousands of financial institutions. The class action claims these institutions suffered losses of as much as $18 billion. The costs were incurred in reissuing cards, reimbursing customers and changing or canceling accounts. However, missing from the complaint were claims under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. An attorney, representing three financial institutions, has argued in favor of bringing RICO claims and sought the court’s permission to file individual lawsuits on behalf of his clients rather than join the class action. It is unknown whether he has been granted that request. In September, the class-actions from consumers and banks were consolidated into one and filed in Minnesota – Target’s home state. Target responded with a motion to dismiss the claims from financial institutions, arguing that they had failed to state a claim for their allegations relating to violation of the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act, negligent misrepresentation by omission and negligence. Target argues that it has a relationship with the payment processors, not the banks themselves, and therefore, cannot be held responsible for damages to a third-party under state law. It may be more difficult for financial institutions to secure a verdict against Target, given outcomes in other cases. A data breach lawsuit against Michaels Stores Inc. was dismissed after the presiding judge ruled the plaintiffs couldn’t show that they suffered direct “economic damage” from a breach that compromised as many as 2.6 million customer credit and debit card numbers. Plaintiffs in data-breach actions against Barnes & Noble Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Sam’s Club and Aetna Inc. have also faced similar rulings. Though Target’s hack may have been the impetus for the uproar over consumer data protection, underlying the conversation, now taking place,[READ MORE…]
Subscribe to this blog’s feed
- When to Call an Accident Lawyer
Irrespective of whether an injury is compensable through a personal injury lawsuit or workers' compe...
- Two Big Changes to Driving Laws in Illinois Now in Effect
Nearly 200 new laws went into effect in Illinois on January 1 this year, making it important to know...
- Is Your Child’s School Safe? Some Tips to Make That More Likely
The unfortunate and tragic events in American schools in recent years have been cause for concern to...
ankin law office llc
162 West Grand Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Toll Free: 800-442-6546