Workforce Bulletin

A recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois highlights new legal hurdles for employers using AI-powered video interview technologies under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/15. 

In Deyerler v. HireVue, initially filed over two years ago in January 2022, a class of plaintiffs alleged that HireVue’s AI-powered facial expression and screening technology violated BIPA.  According to the complaint, HireVue collected, used, disclosed, and profited from “biometric identifiers” without complying with the requirements of BIPA.  In a published decision, issued February 26, 2024, the court largely denied HireVue’s motion to dismiss, allowing most claims to proceed, and addressed several legal questions relevant to AI hiring tools and the use of video interviewing software. 

In its decision, the court first considered HireVue’s argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because HireVue has no meaningful corporate presence in Illinois and the applicable software was not developed in Illinois.  The court rejected that argument and found that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded personal jurisdiction by alleging that HireVue marketed and sold its software to at least one company headquartered in Illinois, and the HireVue software was used to capture at least one of the plaintiff’s biometric identifiers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re concentrating on the flurry of challenges that federal agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—have recently faced in the courts. We’ll also discuss potential changes to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS’s) controversial Chevron deference doctrine.

Recently, a Georgia federal district court permitted an employer’s counterclaims against its former employee-whistleblower to proceed in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit after determining that the employer’s amended counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract were sufficiently independent from the underlying FCA claims to survive a motion to dismiss, despite significant factual overlap. The decision in U.S. ex rel. Cooley v. ERMI, LLC, et al.., a qui tam FCA action where the plaintiff, known as a “Relator,” brings the claim on behalf of the ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: Restrictive covenants are evolving at a record pace right now at both the federal and state levels. Employers are struggling to keep up, and that’s especially true in the health care industry.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, our podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Katherine G. Rigby, Erik W. Weibust, Glenn P. Prives, and Denise Merna Dadika discuss restrictive covenants in relation to physician groups and other health care organizations employing direct care ...

On December 11, 2023, the City of San Francisco released the San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines (“Guidelines”).  The Guidelines set forth parameters for City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors who use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform work on behalf of the City.

Specifically, the Guidelines encourage City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors to use generative AI tools for purposes such as preparing initial drafts of documents, “translating” text into levels of formality or for a ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: The SECURE 2.0 Act revolutionized retirement planning by simplifying and expanding retirement and health plan benefits.

Over a year after the legislation became law, provisions are still rolling out. So, what’s new in 2024?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Cassandra Labbees and Mason Gardner tell us more about the recent updates and guidance on the SECURE 2.0 Act.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we present a California labor and employment update featuring the upcoming deadline for non-compete notice rules, workplace violence regulations by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and the recent Estrada decision's implications for the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

As the implementation and integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools (AI) continue to affect nearly every industry, concerns over AI’s potentially discriminatory effects in the use of these tools continue to grow. The need for ethical, trustworthy, explainable, and transparent AI systems is gaining momentum and recognition among state and local regulatory agencies—and the insurance industry has not escaped their notice.

On January 17, 2024, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”) took a further step towards imposing ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re running down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recently released final rule on worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the challenges faced by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) joint-employer rule, and SpaceX’s groundbreaking suit against the NLRB.

Almost a decade ago, in September 2014, California was the first state in the nation to enact legislation prohibiting non-disparagement clauses that aimed to prevent consumers from writing negative reviews of a business. Popularly referred to as the “Yelp Bill,” AB 2365 was codified at California Civil Code Section 1670.8, which prohibits businesses from threatening or otherwise requiring consumers, in a contract or proposed contract for sale or lease of consumer goods, to waive their right to make any statement—positive or negative—regarding the business or ...