Happy Labor DayHappy Labor Day to all Chinese HR professionals in North America! Your dedication and hard work significantly enrich our workplaces and drive the future of HR. #LaborDay #ChineseHR #NACSHR #HappyLaborDay
Happy Labor Day
资讯
2024年09月01日
资讯
Care.com因夸大工作数量和收入，被诉向FTC支付850万美元和解金美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对Care.com采取了法律行动，原因是该公司在其平台上关于照护工作的可用性和潜在收入的广告中存在误导性陈述。这些广告经常夸大了工作的数量和可能的收入，同时还使用户难以取消他们的订阅。根据和解协议，Care.com必须支付850万美元用于消费者退款，并且要求公司未来在做出收入声明时必须实事求是，并简化订阅取消流程。此举不仅保护了消费者权益，也促进了更为诚信的市场环境。
近日，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）与在线护理服务平台Care.com达成了一项重要的和解协议。此次和解，Care.com将支付850万美元，用于赔偿因其误导性广告和复杂的取消流程受损的消费者。
FTC指控Care.com在其平台上发布的护理工作的可用性和潜在收入方面存在误导性信息。此外，Care.com的订阅取消流程复杂，迫使消费者无法轻易取消服务，从而违反了消费者权益。
对此，Care.com表示，尽管公司对FTC的指控持有异议，并有信心通过法律途径争取正当权益，但最终决定选择和解，以避免长时间的诉讼消耗公司资源。Care.com强调，和解不代表对FTC指控的认可，公司的主要目标仍是为美国家庭及看护工作者提供高质量的服务。
Care.com回应称，他们一直致力于透明和公平地展示工作机会和薪资信息，任何误导消费者的行为都不符合公司的业务宗旨。关于FTC提出的取消订阅问题，Care.com承诺将进一步简化流程，确保消费者能够轻松管理其订阅。
此外，此次事件也引起了业界对护理经济透明度和公平性的广泛关注。随着护理服务需求的增加，消费者对透明度和公平交易的要求也日益增强。业内专家指出，此类和解案例可能会推动行业内更多的自我监管和改进，从而提高服务质量和消费者满意度。
长期以来，Care.com已在全美各地提供服务，帮助数百万家庭找到合适的看护资源。公司表示，尽管面临FTC的指控和和解，但会继续扩展其服务，确保为更多家庭和看护工作者创造价值。
FTC方面也表达了对和解结果的满意，认为这是保护消费者权益的重要一步。FTC表示将继续监督市场，确保所有企业都能遵守公平竞争和诚实宣传的原则。
总之，此次和解不仅解决了Care.com与FTC之间的法律纠纷，也为护理服务行业树立了一个公平交易和消费者保护的标杆。未来，Care.com及同行业的其他公司可能需要在确保广告真实性和提供消费者友好服务方面做出更多努力。
附录Care.com 的回应新闻稿
CARE.COM RESPONSE TO FTC AGREEMENT
At Care.com, we put our members first, providing valuable tools and resources to help families find care and caregivers find jobs.
Though we were fully prepared to litigate for the next several years if necessary and confident in our position, we decided to enter into an agreement with the FTC to resolve this matter now and keep our focus on helping our customers.
This settlement is in no way a validation of the FTC’s claims. In fact, the settlement requires no material change in how Care.com serves those who use its platform.
At a time when the care economy is under assault, when families are draining their savings to afford child care, when caregivers are leaving the profession and when our growing senior population is facing astronomical long term care costs, it is disappointing that the FTC has chosen to attack trusted businesses who are part of the solution.
We have been in business nearly 20 years, available in every state and every town in America. That kind of longevity and scale comes from putting customers first every day; helping millions of families access the care they need and connecting millions of caregivers with meaningful, well-paying jobs.
In response to the FTC’s press release, we wanted to clarify a few facts:
The presentation of available job opportunities: We would not be in business for long if we manipulated optics, inflated statistics and attempted to trick our customers. We have found that many care seekers prefer to see a level of interest in their job post before committing to a premium membership, and our basic service tier offers this “try before you buy” opportunity. When a seeker sees the array of caregivers available, the commitment to premium membership—which enables seekers to contact and hire caregivers—follows naturally.
Earnings data: Care.com does not set rates and we never make promises about earnings. The data we provide about posted rates is based solely on what families say they are willing to pay, which varies significantly. Given the size of our platform, the potential earnings data we provide is at scale, and helps maintain a balanced and fair market for care.
Cancellation process: Families and caregivers can and do cancel memberships at any time and for a variety of reasons, including having successfully found a caregiver or a job. Our members can easily cancel if they wish, and we are further streamlining the process for doing so. Cancellation instructions for desktop and mobile users are included in every confirmation email upon sign up, accessible in our Help Center and available through our Customer Care support team which also offers 24 hour support via chat.
Given the care crisis in America, we believe our collective energy as a country should be on solutions, not nitpicking attacks. Care.com intends to keep our focus on what matters: American families and the hardworking caregivers who support them.
资讯
2024年08月26日
资讯
德州联邦法官全国范围内推翻联邦贸易委员会禁止竞业限制协议的禁令On August 20, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) nationwide ban on noncompete agreements, ruling that the ban exceeded the agency's statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This decision, just 15 days before the ban was set to take effect, marks a significant victory for employers, particularly in the healthcare sector, and a setback for medical workers who anticipated increased job mobility and wage growth. The ruling also aligns with concerns from the American Hospital Association and other industry groups regarding the potential disruptive impact of the ban. The FTC is considering an appeal, but the ruling emphasizes the ongoing legal challenges surrounding the agency's authority to regulate noncompete agreements.
德克萨斯州一位联邦法官周二推翻了联邦贸易委员会（FTC）对雇佣合同中竞业限制协议的禁令，裁定该禁令违反了《行政程序法》并超出了该机构的法定权限。
这一裁决适用于全国范围，并在禁令原定于9月4日生效前15天作出。
美国德克萨斯北区地方法院的艾达·布朗法官上个月已经做出裁定，初步禁止FTC的竞业限制禁令，但仅限于本案的原告。
然而，布朗法官在8月20日的决定中完全取消了这一规定，因为她写道，APA“并未考虑针对特定当事方的救济”。
这一决定是对美国商会——全国最大的商业游说团体——的胜利，商会与一家税务公司一起提起了诉讼。
对于医疗行业而言，这一裁决则是喜忧参半。禁令原本被认为可以帮助被限制性合同束缚的医生、护士和其他医疗工作者更容易换工作，并可能促使工资上涨。
据美国医学会称，大约35%到45%的医生受到竞业限制协议的约束。
然而，关于禁令仍有一些悬而未决的问题，包括FTC是否有法律权力颁布此禁令、是否适用于非营利性医院以及它将如何影响并购活动、医生短缺和招聘工作，特别是对较小的地区系统。
强烈反对这一禁令的强大医院游说团体——美国医院协会，对法官的决定表示了赞扬。
“这一规定是监管权力的惊人宣示……更糟糕的是，委员会没有尝试理解它对医院、卫生系统以及他们所服务的患者所产生的破坏性影响，”AHA总法律顾问查德·戈尔德在与Healthcare Dive分享的声明中说。
与此同时，FTC发言人维多利亚·格雷厄姆表示，FTC正在“认真考虑”上诉。
格雷厄姆指出，布朗的裁决并未阻止监管机构通过个案执法来追究过度限制性的竞业限制协议。
今年4月，FTC以3票对2票通过了这项禁令，该禁令将使所有现有的竞业限制协议（除了一些高级管理人员外）不可执行，并禁止签订新的此类合同。两位共和党委员投票反对这一禁令，认为FTC没有国会授权来实施它。
在周二的裁决中，布朗法官认为《联邦贸易委员会法》确实赋予FTC“制定规则以排除不公平竞争方法”的某些权力，但该机构“没有创建实质性规则”的权力，比如竞业限制协议禁令。
这一观点得到了这样一个事实的支持，即国会没有为某些FTC法规的违反规定制裁措施，“这表明缺乏实质性效力”，她说。
布朗还得出结论认为，FTC的禁令在《行政程序法》意义上是任意和反复无常的，因为它不合理地过于宽泛且没有合理解释。
法官表示，该机构未能为其决定禁止所有竞业限制协议而不是针对具体有害协议提供证据。
布朗的裁决与7月23日支持FTC的宾夕法尼亚州联邦法官的裁决相冲突，该法官拒绝阻止禁令。上周，佛罗里达州的一位联邦法官也对禁令发布了有限的禁令，认为FTC可能超越了其法定权限。
这些不同的裁决表明，FTC是否有权禁止竞业限制条款的问题可能会面临上诉审查。
资讯
2024年08月24日
资讯
伊利诺伊州签署SB 3650法案，大幅提升临时工薪酬与福利保障 Illinois governor signs temp worker bill into law2024年8月9日，伊利诺伊州州长J.B.普里茨克签署了SB 3650法案，将该州有争议的《日薪和临时劳动服务法》进行了修订。新法案旨在为临时工提供与直接雇员相同的薪酬和福利待遇，并将享受福利的等待期从90天缩短至30天。伊利诺伊州劳动部已撤回其拟议的规则，预计将在新法案成为法律后重新提交修订后的提案。SB 3650对使用临时劳动力的招聘公司和第三方用户客户提出了新的要求，包括薪酬和福利平等、集体谈判协议例外，以及更新的员工通知要求和新的申请人接收要求。此外，法案还明确规定，招聘公司不得将临时工派遣到有罢工、停工或其他劳资纠纷的工作场所，且必须在派遣时以书面形式通知工人，并告知其有权拒绝该工作而不影响其获得其他工作的权利。这些变化旨在改善伊利诺伊州临时工的工作条件。
Illinois governor signs temp worker bill into law
2024年8月9日，伊利诺伊州州长J.B.普里茨克正式签署了SB 3650法案，对《日薪和临时劳动服务法》进行了全面修订，标志着该州在保护临时工权益方面迈出了重大一步。新法案特别针对工业招聘公司，旨在确保临时工能够享受与正式雇员相同的薪酬和福利待遇，同时对招聘流程中的多项关键要素进行了规范。
平等薪酬与福利的保障
根据SB 3650法案，临时工必须与直接雇佣的正式员工享有同等的薪酬和福利待遇。这一规定旨在解决长期以来临时工在薪酬和福利方面面临的显著差距，确保他们在工作中获得公平的对待。
法案中的一项重要修改是将临时工享受平等待遇的等待期从90天缩短至30天，或720小时。这一调整大大缩短了临时工获得与正式员工相同福利待遇的时间，使他们能够更快地享受应有的权利。这意味着临时工在一个月内就可以获得与正式雇员相同的医疗、休假和其他福利，这对于那些依赖临时工作维持生计的工人来说是一个重大的改善。
数据使用的新规定
SB 3650法案还为招聘公司提供了新的操作指南，使他们可以通过使用美国劳工统计局（BLS）数据库中的数据来确定相应职位的薪酬标准，而不再完全依赖客户提供的数据。这一规定不仅简化了招聘公司的操作流程，也为薪酬标准的确定提供了更加客观的依据，进一步保障了临时工的薪酬公平性。
劳资纠纷通知义务
为了更好地保护临时工的权益，SB 3650法案增加了一项新规定，要求招聘公司在派遣临时工到存在罢工、停工或其他劳资纠纷的工作场所时，必须在派遣前以书面形式通知工人。这些通知内容必须包括当前劳资纠纷的详细信息以及工人有权拒绝该派遣任务而不影响其获得其他工作的权利。此项规定旨在防止临时工在不知情的情况下被派遣到具有潜在风险的工作环境中，从而保障他们的职业安全。
集体谈判协议的豁免
此外，法案还明确规定，在存在集体谈判协议的情况下，某些条款可以被豁免。这意味着如果工会代表的临时工和雇主达成了集体谈判协议，某些标准化的规定可能不适用于这些工人。这一条款为集体谈判留下了灵活性空间，确保工会能够根据实际情况与雇主达成最符合工人利益的协议。
法案通过的背景和意义
伊利诺伊州劳动部在法案签署之前，撤回了其此前拟议的与临时工相关的规则修订，并计划在新法案生效后重新提交修订后的提案。这一撤回动作表明州政府在立法过程中对最新的法律变化进行了充分的考量，并将通过进一步的修订来确保新法案的实施符合实际需求。
SB 3650法案的通过被广泛认为是伊利诺伊州在保护劳动者权益方面的又一次重大立法进展。尤其是在临时工这一常常被忽视的群体中，该法案提供了更全面的保护措施，有望改善数十万临时工的工作条件。这一立法不仅对伊利诺伊州的临时工带来了直接的影响，也可能为其他州提供参考，推动全美范围内临时工权益的进一步提升。
通过这一法案，伊利诺伊州再次显示出其在劳工保护立法上的前瞻性和领导地位，成为其他州在保障劳动者权益方面的重要借鉴对象。
Summary of SB 3650: Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act Amendment
Bill Number: SB 3650
General Assembly: 103rd
Sponsor: Sen. Robert F. Martwick
Purpose:
The SB 3650 bill amends the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act with the aim of enhancing protections for temporary workers in Illinois. The key focus areas of the amendment include ensuring equal pay and benefits for temporary workers as compared to directly employed workers, shortening the waiting period for benefits, and introducing new requirements for staffing agencies and their clients.
Key Provisions:
Equal Pay and Benefits: Temporary workers must receive the same pay and benefits as directly employed workers in comparable positions.
Waiting Period Reduction: The waiting period for temporary workers to become eligible for equal benefits is reduced from 90 days to 30 days or 720 hours.
Use of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Staffing agencies are allowed to use the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) database to determine comparable pay rates instead of relying on client-provided data.
Employee Notice Requirements: Temporary workers must be notified in writing if they are being sent to a location with an ongoing strike, lockout, or work stoppage, and they must be informed of their right to refuse the assignment without prejudice.
Exemption for Collective Bargaining Agreements: The bill provides an exemption for cases where a collective bargaining agreement is in place.
Status:
The bill was signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 9, 2024.
资讯
2024年08月13日
资讯
National Advertising Division Finds Certain Deel Payroll and HRIS Claims Supported; Recommends Others be Modified or DiscontinuedBBB全国项目的国家广告部（NAD）对Deel公司在其薪资和人力资源信息系统（HRIS）方面的广告声明进行了审查，回应了竞争对手Rippling提出的挑战。NAD认为，Deel的部分声明，如“每年节省高达$20,000”和“行业领先的全球薪资软件”是有依据的。然而，NAD建议修改或停止某些其他声明，特别是关于与Rippling的比较、法律合规性和客户支持的声明。NAD认为，Deel的“本地化”和“内部运营”薪资服务声明需要进一步澄清，并建议调整对Rippling的比较方式。此外，NAD要求停止使用“全球HR市场领导者”的称号，因为没有确凿证据支持这一说法。Deel已表示将遵守NAD的决定，进一步确保其广告的真实性和透明度。此次审查反映了NAD对广告真实性的持续关注，确保消费者能够获得准确的信息，同时促进公平竞争。
In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
New York, NY, Aug. 08, 2024 -- In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
However, the National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended that Deel modify or discontinue certain other claims, including comparative claims versus Rippling’s native payroll software, legal compliance, and customer support.
The parties are human resources and payroll service providers that offer multiple services.
Native and In-House Payroll Claims
Rippling challenged claims about “native” and “in-house” payroll systems that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓, Rippling X”
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, they currently use partners in some countries.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that customers could reasonably take away the message that native payroll includes native payroll software. Further, customers may reasonably take away the message that Rippling does not offer in-house and native payroll in all the countries in which it offers global payroll (outside of employer of record).
Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel modify these claims by clearly and conspicuously defining what “native” means and clarifying that the comparison with Rippling also includes countries where they offer payroll as part of their employer of record services.
Industry-Leading Payroll Claim
Deel claims on its website to have “[i]ndustry leading global payroll software” and, in a smaller font, “Deel is a leader in multi-country payroll and contractor payments, according to G2 user reviews.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the phrase “global payroll software” means that Deel offers payroll software globally—whether that is in-house or through a third-party. Further, NAD considered the language and the context in which the “industry leading” language appears and concluded the claim does not convey a superlative message. Consumers are likely to take away the message that Deel is among the top in the industry, but not necessarily the best.
Since the record indicates that Deel has significant revenue, market presence, and a large global footprint, and there is no dispute that Deel and Rippling are among the many leaders in the global payroll market, NAD concluded that this claim was not false or misleading.
HRIS Comparative Claims
Rippling challenged claims on Deel’s website that customers can “[s]witch to Deel HR and save up to $20,000 per year.” An accompanying chart below the claim lists seven product features with Rippling and Deel displaying checkmarks for each feature. The chart states that Deel is “Free for companies with less than 200 employees” while Rippling costs “$8 employee/month.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) concluded that because both products offer the touted features, it is not misleading to characterize Deel’s software as having those product features and that the product comparison chart is not misleading.
HRIS Superlative Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that there was no evidence in the record to support an unqualified claim that Deel is #1 in the market. Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel discontinue the claims:
“The market leader in the Global HR space.”
“Build confidence in your compliance with the #1 Global HR platform.”
Preference Claim
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that data relied on by Deel is not a good fit for its claim that “Teams prefer Deel over Rippling for global HR and Payroll” because it did not indicate a preference for one product over another. Accordingly, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
Compliance Claims
Rippling challenged claims about legal compliance that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world -- ✓ Yes, Rippling X No”
“Compliance document collection for contractors, on top of EOR, constantly reviewed and updated.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that in context it is reasonable to take away the message that Rippling has an inferior network of legal experts around the world, and it does not offer compliance document collection. Since Deel submitted no evidence in support of these two claims, NAD recommended it discontinue the comparative part of these claims as they relate to Rippling and cease conveying the messages that there are legal risks associated with using Rippling products and that Rippling’s products are not compliant.
NAD noted that nothing in its decision would prevent Deel from advertising its network of local legal hiring experts or comparing its compliance services to Rippling’s so long as they do not claim that Rippling lacks a network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world or compliance document collection for contractors.
Customer Support Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the comparative claim that Rippling does not offer multi-channel support is not false or misleading.
However, NAD concluded that the unqualified claim, “Deel’s support is in-house, reliable, and faster than Rippling” is not supported and recommended that it be discontinued or modified to make clear the circumstances and times when its support would be faster and avoid conveying the message that Rippling’s customer support is unreliable.
Further, NAD determined that Deel’s claim “Same level of service in every country with centralized communications – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, as they use partners in some places,” is not supported because there is no evidence about the level of service provided by Rippling in any country. Therefore, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
During the proceeding Deel permanently discontinued and modified certain claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on their merits and will treat the claims, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.
In its advertiser statement, Deel stated that it will comply with NAD’s decision.
All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive. This press release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.
About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.
About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. The National Advertising Division reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.
Paychex因数据泄露被起诉：数千员工信息遭曝光事件背景
2024年4月30日，知名薪资服务公司Paychex在与加利福尼亚州政府交换未认领财产信息时，意外曝光了大量雇员的个人信息。此次数据泄露事件导致成千上万名雇员的姓名、社会安全号码等敏感信息被未授权的个人获取。事件发生后，引发了广泛关注和担忧。
诉讼详情
2024年7月11日，纽约西区联邦法院收到了一起针对Paychex的集体诉讼。原告娜塔莉·史蒂文森（Natalie Stevenson）声称，Paychex未能采取足够的网络安全措施，导致未授权个人能够访问并窃取员工的个人信息。此次诉讼的核心指控是Paychex在数据安全方面存在严重疏忽，没有及时通知受影响的个人，从而加剧了受害者的潜在风险。
原告指出，Paychex在处理不直接与公司有关系的个人信息时，负有保护这些信息的责任。然而，公司未能实施足够的安全措施来防止数据泄露，违反了对受影响个人的信任。此次事件不仅给受害者带来了身份盗窃的风险，还导致了财务监控费用的增加以及其他相关损失。
受害者影响
据原告律师团队称，数据泄露事件对受影响的员工造成了以下几方面的损害：
身份盗窃风险增加：受影响的员工可能面临身份盗窃的直接威胁，导致个人信息被恶意使用。
财务监控费用增加：受害者不得不投入更多的时间和金钱来监控其财务账户，以防止欺诈活动。
精神损害：由于个人信息泄露，受害者承受了巨大的心理压力和不安。
数据价值损失：个人信息的泄露降低了这些信息的价值，并可能对受害者的未来造成不利影响。
法律责任
此次诉讼由Weitz & Luxenberg PC和Strauss Borrelli PLLC的律师团队代表原告发起。诉讼文件指出，Paychex未能履行其应有的安全义务，导致员工信息遭到泄露。原告要求法院判令Paychex赔偿受害者的实际损失，并采取必要措施，防止未来类似事件的发生。
具体而言，诉讼要求Paychex：
赔偿损失：包括因身份盗窃和财务监控增加的费用。
提供后续支持：为受害者提供信用监控服务和身份恢复支持。
改进安全措施：实施更严格的网络安全措施，防止类似数据泄露事件再次发生。
行业影响
此次事件并非孤立个例，近年来，越来越多的公司因数据泄露事件面临法律诉讼。数据安全已经成为各行业关注的焦点，企业需要不断提升其网络安全水平，以保护客户和员工的个人信息。
近年来，许多知名企业因数据泄露事件被起诉并支付了巨额赔偿。例如，HR供应商UKG因2021年的数据泄露事件而支付了数百万美元的赔偿。此外，餐饮连锁店Panera和新闻媒体Philadelphia Inquirer也因类似事件面临法律诉讼。
结论
此次针对Paychex的集体诉讼提醒企业必须高度重视数据安全。随着个人信息保护法律法规的不断完善，企业在处理和保护客户及员工信息时需更加谨慎。未来，企业应不断投资于网络安全技术和培训，确保信息安全管理体系的完善和有效运作。
对于受影响的员工而言，及时采取防范措施并寻求法律支持是应对数据泄露事件的重要步骤。受害者应密切关注其财务账户，并采取必要的信用监控措施，以减少身份盗窃带来的潜在损失。此次事件的法律进展将对未来类似案件的处理提供重要参考，也将促使企业进一步加强数据保护措施。
Paychex Sued for Negligence After Data Breach Exposes Workers’ Names and Social Security Numbers
Background
On April 30, 2024, Paychex, a leading payroll services provider, experienced a significant data breach while exchanging unclaimed property information with the State of California. This incident exposed the personal information of thousands of employees, including names and Social Security numbers. The breach has raised serious concerns about Paychex’s cybersecurity measures and its ability to protect sensitive data.
Details of the Lawsuit
On July 11, 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed against Paychex in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The plaintiff, Natalie Stevenson, alleges that Paychex failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, which allowed unauthorized individuals to access and steal employees’ personal information. The lawsuit claims that Paychex’s negligence in data security practices and delayed notification to affected individuals have caused significant harm.
The lawsuit highlights several key points:
Negligence in Data Security: Paychex is accused of not having sufficient safeguards to protect personal information, leading to unauthorized access and data theft.
Delayed Notification: The company allegedly failed to promptly inform the affected individuals, exacerbating the potential harm caused by the breach.
Duty of Care: Paychex is argued to have assumed a duty of care to protect the personal information of employees, even if those individuals had no direct relationship with the company.
Impact on Victims
The data breach has had multiple adverse effects on the affected employees:
Increased Risk of Identity Theft: Exposed individuals are at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud.
Financial Monitoring Costs: Victims have incurred additional expenses and time to monitor their financial accounts for suspicious activity.
Emotional Distress: The breach has caused significant stress and anxiety among those affected.
Loss of Data Value: The exposure has diminished the value of the victims’ personal information, potentially impacting their future security.
Legal Responsibility
The lawsuit seeks to hold Paychex accountable for its alleged failures and aims to secure compensation for the victims. Specifically, the lawsuit demands:
Damages: Compensation for financial losses and emotional distress suffered by the victims.
Support Services: Provision of credit monitoring and identity restoration services to the affected individuals.
Enhanced Security Measures: Implementation of stronger cybersecurity protocols to prevent future breaches.
Broader Industry Impact
This incident is part of a growing trend of data breach lawsuits targeting companies handling sensitive personal information. Similar cases have been filed against various organizations, highlighting the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures across industries. Notably, HR vendor UKG faced significant legal and financial repercussions following its 2021 data breach, illustrating the widespread consequences of inadequate data protection.
Conclusion
The Paychex data breach lawsuit underscores the critical importance of cybersecurity in protecting personal information. As data breaches become increasingly common, organizations must prioritize the implementation of comprehensive security measures to safeguard sensitive data. This case serves as a reminder to all companies about the legal and ethical responsibilities they bear in managing and protecting personal information.
For the affected employees, it is crucial to take proactive steps in monitoring their financial accounts and seeking legal advice to address potential identity theft and fraud. The outcome of this lawsuit will likely influence future data protection practices and set precedents for handling similar incidents.
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
资讯
扫一扫
添加客服
