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
2024年07月22日
资讯
法官允许针对 Workday 的人工智能偏见诉讼继续进行Workday因其AI筛选软件涉嫌偏见而面临集体诉讼。美国加州北区地方法院法官Rita Lin裁定，Workday可能被视为受联邦反歧视法律保护的雇主，因为它执行的筛选功能是其客户通常自己执行的。这一裁决可能会对使用AI进行招聘的法律责任产生重大影响。该诉讼由Derek Mobley提起，他表示自己因为是黑人、年龄超过40岁且患有焦虑和抑郁症而被Workday的客户公司拒绝了超过100次工作机会。EEOC警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会承担法律责任。
7月15日（路透社）——加利福尼亚的一位联邦法官驳回了Workday公司试图驳回一项拟议中的集体诉讼的请求。该诉讼称，Workday公司用于筛选其他企业求职者的人工智能软件中包含了现有的偏见。
在这一首例裁决中，美国地方法官Rita Lin于周五表示，Workday可以被视为受联邦工作场所歧视法律覆盖的雇主，因为它执行了其客户通常自己进行的筛选功能。
Lin拒绝驳回Derek Mobley在2023年提出的几项诉讼。Mobley声称由于他是黑人、年龄超过40岁并患有焦虑和抑郁症，他在与Workday签约的公司中申请了超过100个职位但都被拒绝。
此案是首个挑战使用AI筛选软件的拟议集体诉讼，可能会在使用AI自动化招聘和其他就业功能的法律影响上树立重要的先例。现在，大多数大型公司都在使用这种技术。
Lin驳回了Workday基于种族和年龄的故意歧视指控。她还裁定该公司不能被视为反偏见法下的“就业机构”，因为与人力资源公司不同，它不为工人提供就业机会。
Workday发言人在一份声明中表示，公司对Lin驳回部分指控感到满意。“我们有信心在进入下一阶段时能轻松驳斥剩余指控，因为我们将有机会直接挑战其准确性，”发言人说。
Mobley的律师没有立即回应置评请求。诉讼称，Workday使用公司现有员工的数据来训练其AI软件，以筛选最佳申请者，但没有考虑到现有歧视可能反映的问题。
Mobley指控Workday违反了1964年《民权法案》第七章（Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964）和其他联邦反歧视法律，进行了种族、年龄和残疾歧视。拟议中的集体诉讼可能包括数十万人。
Workday表示，由于它不是Mobley的潜在雇主，也不是可以因歧视而被追责的就业机构，因为它不为客户做出招聘决定，因此不受工作场所偏见法律的约束。
但Lin在周五表示，反偏见法律旨在广泛保护工人，防止雇主将筛选申请者等任务外包以逃避责任，并且Workday可以作为其客户的代理人承担责任。
“（诉讼）合理地声称Workday的客户将包括拒绝申请者在内的传统招聘功能委托给Workday提供的算法决策工具，”民主党总统Joe Biden任命的Lin写道。
美国平等就业机会委员会（U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission）负责执行联邦禁止工作场所歧视的法律，该机构在4月份的一份简报中曾敦促Lin让案件继续进行。该机构警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会被追究法律责任。
California Small Businesses Can Apply Now for Up to $2,000 Per Employee for Paid Family Leave Grants 加州小型企业现在就可以为每位员工申请最高 2000 美元的带薪探亲假补助金从2024年6月1日起，加利福尼亚州拥有1-100名员工的小企业可以申请每名员工高达2000美元的补助，用于应对员工使用加州带薪家庭假期（PFL）计划时增加的成本。加州的带薪家庭假期计划允许员工在需要照顾新生儿（通过出生、收养或寄养）或照顾重病家属时，享受最多8周的带薪休假。
这个补助计划旨在帮助企业应对员工休假期间的成本增加，例如培训现有员工、招聘和培训额外员工等。符合条件的企业必须在加州注册，在加州州务卿办公室处于活跃状态，并拥有一个有效的加州雇主账号。了解更多信息并申请补助，请访问CaliforniaPFL.com
Attention small businesses in California with 1-100 employees! If you have at least one employee who will be using California’s Paid Family Leave program on or after June 1, 2024, you may be eligible to apply for grants up to $2,000 per employee on PFL. This grant is designed to help offset the increased costs you may face while the employee is on leave. California’s Paid Family Leave program allows workers to take paid leave to bond with a new child (through birth, adoption, or foster care) or to care for a seriously ill family member. Businesses impacted by this program may have increased costs, such as training and upskilling existing staff to cover the duties of the employee on leave, hiring and training additional staff, and other related expenses. For more information and to apply for the grant, please visit CaliforniaPFL.com.
LOS ANGELES--Small businesses across California can now receive grants of up to $2,000 per employee through California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program. The online application is now open.
This initiative, funded by the California Employment Training Panel and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, aims to support small businesses in managing additional costs when employees take leave. These grants can help cover expenses such as cross-training existing staff and hiring and training new or temporary employees, ensuring business continuity during employee absences.
California’s PFL program provides eligible employees with up to 8 weeks of wage replacement benefits when they are off work for certain qualifying reasons, such as bonding with a new child or caring for a seriously ill family member. The grant is available to small businesses with 1 to 100 employees that have at least one employee utilizing PFL on or after June 1, 2024.
Grants are available in the following amounts:
Businesses with 51–100 employees may receive up to $1,000 per employee utilizing Paid Family Leave.
Businesses with 1–50 employees may receive up to $2,000 per employee utilizing Paid Family Leave.
To qualify, businesses must:
Employ between 1 and 100 employees;
Be registered to do business in the State of California;
Be in active status with the office of the California Secretary of State;
Have an active California Employer Account Number under which employees are listed for payroll and
Have at least one employee on California’s Paid Family Leave on or after June 1, 2024.
For more information or to apply for a grant, visit CaliforniaPFL.com.
资讯
2024年06月25日
资讯
美国SEC控告纽约的AI招聘公司Joonko的创始人证券欺诈和电信欺诈概要：伊利特·拉兹（Ilit Raz），AI招聘公司Joonko的首席执行官和创始人，因涉嫌对投资者进行重大欺诈被美国证券交易委员会（SEC）及纽约南区美国检察官办公室指控。SEC指控拉兹通过虚假和误导性的声明欺骗投资者，包括夸大Joonko的客户数量和质量、平台上的求职者数量以及公司收入，涉嫌欺诈金额至少达到2100万美元。
Joonko公司自称利用人工智能帮助客户找到多元化和代表性不足的求职者，以达到其多元化、公平和包容的招聘目标。然而，拉兹向投资者提供了虚构的客户感谢信和赞誉其效果的假证据，甚至在被投资者质疑时提供了伪造的银行对账单和合同。这一骗局在2023年中期被揭穿，当时一名投资者面对面质问拉兹，拉兹承认伪造文件并撒谎关于公司的财务状况和客户基础。
SEC和刑事检察机关的指控显示，拉兹利用新兴技术领域的热潮，以人工智能和自动化等流行词汇吸引投资，实际上却进行了传统的欺诈行为。这一事件不仅揭示了创业公司在吸引投资时可能存在的道德风险，也提醒了投资者在追求人工智能等高科技领域的投资机会时需要格外谨慎。
总部位于纽约市的人工智能招聘平台Joonko的创始人及前首席执行官因涉嫌欺诈投资者，误导他们关于公司核心方面的信息，被控证券欺诈和电信欺诈。
美国证券交易委员会（SEC）在6月11日于纽约南区联邦地区法院提交的投诉中指控，这家现已关闭的人工智能招聘初创公司的创始人及前首席执行官伊利特·拉兹通过对Joonko的客户数量和质量、平台上的求职者数量以及公司收入等核心方面作出虚假和误导性陈述，从投资者那里骗取至少2100万美元（2022年9月有一篇融资B轮2500万美元的新闻点击可以查看）。
Joonko在2022年完成了由Insight Partners领投、包括Target Global、Kapor Capital和Vertex Ventures Israel等投资者参与的2500万美元B轮融资。《华尔街日报》报道称，该公司自2016年成立以来共筹集了超过3800万美元。Kapor Capital拒绝对此发表评论，而Insight、Target Global和Vertex Ventures Israel则没有回应《华尔街日报》的置评请求。
SEC指控拉兹违反了联邦证券法的反欺诈条款，要求对其实施永久禁令、民事罚款、返还非法所得及预审计利息，并禁止其担任公司高管。
与此同时，纽约南区美国检察官办公室也于6月11日宣布了针对拉兹的刑事指控。拥有以色列国籍的拉兹被控一项证券欺诈和一项电信欺诈，每项罪名最高可判20年监禁。
Joonko于5月24日在特拉华州美国破产法院申请破产保护。
根据SEC的投诉，Joonko声称使用人工智能帮助客户找到多元化和代表性不足的求职者，以实现其多元化、公平和包容的招聘目标。拉兹在筹资过程中向投资者谎称Joonko拥有超过100家客户——包括财富500强公司，并向投资者提供了几家公司的虚假感谢信，赞扬其效果。
拉兹还谎称Joonko的收入超过100万美元，正在与超过100000名活跃求职者合作，并在投资者怀疑时向其提供了伪造的银行对账单和伪造的合同。根据投诉，这一骗局在2023年中期被揭穿，当时一名投资者面对面质问拉兹，后者承认伪造了银行对账单和合同，并且在Joonko的收入和客户数量上撒谎。
SEC执行局局长古尔比尔·格雷瓦尔（Gurbir Grewal）在一份新闻稿中表示：“我们指控拉兹利用老式的诈骗手法，但使用了新式的流行词如‘人工智能’和‘自动化’。随着越来越多的人寻求人工智能相关的投资机会，我们将继续监管市场，防止今天投诉中所指控的类型的不当行为。但与此同时，对于那些利用人工智能的热潮来筹资的公司，投资者也应保持警惕。”
附录SCE的新闻稿：
Washington D.C., June 11, 2024 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ilit Raz, CEO and founder of the now-shuttered artificial intelligence recruitment startup Joonko, with defrauding investors of at least $21 million by making false and misleading statements about the quantity and quality of Joonko’s customers, the number of candidates on its platform, and the company’s revenue.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Joonko claimed to use artificial intelligence to help clients find diverse and underrepresented candidates to fulfill their diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring goals. To raise money for Joonko, the complaint alleges that Raz falsely told investors that Joonko had more than 100 customers, including Fortune 500 companies, and provided investors with fabricated testimonials from several companies expressing their appreciation for Joonko and praising its effectiveness. Raz also allegedly lied to investors that Joonko had earned more than $1 million in revenue and was working with more than 100,000 active job candidates. When an investor grew suspicious of Raz’s claims, Raz allegedly provided the investor with falsified bank statements and forged contracts in an effort to conceal the fraud. According to the complaint, the scheme unraveled in mid-2023 when the investor confronted Raz, who admitted to forging bank statements and contracts and lying about Joonko’s revenue and number of customers.
“We allege that Raz engaged in an old school fraud using new school buzzwords like ‘artificial intelligence’ and ‘automation,’” said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “As more and more people seek out AI-related investment opportunities, we will continue to police the markets against AI-washing and the type of misconduct alleged in today’s complaint. But at the same time, it is critical for investors to beware of companies exploiting the fanfare around artificial intelligence to raise funds.”
The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Raz with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks a permanent injunction, civil money penalties, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and an officer-and-director bar against Raz.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against Raz.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Alicia Guo, Ariel Atlas, Neil Hendelman, and Lindsay S. Moilanen and was supervised by Sheldon L. Pollock of the New York Regional Office. The litigation will be led by Ms. Guo and Ms. Atlas, and supervised by Daniel Loss and Mr. Pollock. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI.
华盛顿特区，2024年6月11日 — 美国证切和交易委员会（SEC）今日指控现已关闭的人工智能招聘创业公司Joonko的首席执行官兼创始人伊利特·拉兹（Ilit Raz），因在Joonko的客户数量和质量、平台上的候选人数量以及公司收入方面向投资者做出虚假和误导性陈述，欺诈投资者至少2100万美元。
根据SEC的投诉，Joonko声称使用人工智能帮助客户找到多元化和代表性不足的候选人，以实现其多元化、公平和包容的招聘目标。投诉称拉兹向投资者谎称Joonko拥有超过100家客户，包括财富500强公司，并向投资者提供了几家公司的虚构感谢信，赞扬其效果。拉兹还谎称Joonko的收入超过100万美元，并正在与超过100,000名活跃求职者合作。当一名投资者对拉兹的说法表示怀疑时，拉兹据称向该投资者提供了伪造的银行对账单和伪造的合同来掩盖欺诈行为。根据投诉，该骗局在2023年中期被揭露，当时该投资者直面拉兹，后者承认伪造银行对账单和合同，并且在Joonko的收入和客户数量上撒谎。
SEC执行局局长古尔比尔·S·格雷瓦尔（Gurbir S. Grewal）表示：“我们指控拉兹利用老式的欺诈手法，但使用了新式的流行词如‘人工智能’和‘自动化’。随着越来越多的人寻求人工智能相关的投资机会，我们将继续监管市场，防止今天投诉中所指控的类型的不当行为。但与此同时，对于那些利用人工智能的热潮来筹资的公司，投资者也应保持警惕。”
SEC的投诉已提交至纽约南区美国地区法院，指控拉兹违反联邦证券法的反欺诈条款，并寻求永久禁令、民事罚款、返还非法所得及预审计利息，并禁止其担任公司高管。
与此同时，纽约南区美国检察官办公室今天也宣布了针对拉兹的刑事指控。
SEC的调查由纽约地区办公室的艾丽西亚·郭（Alicia Guo）、阿里尔·阿特拉斯（Ariel Atlas）、尼尔·亨德尔曼（Neil Hendelman）和林赛·S·莫伊兰宁（Lindsay S. Moilanen）进行，并由谢尔顿·L·波洛克（Sheldon L. Pollock）监督。诉讼将由郭女士和阿特拉斯女士领导，并由丹尼尔·洛斯（Daniel Loss）和波洛克先生监着。SEC感谢纽约南区美国检察官办公室和联邦调查局的协助。
资讯
2024年06月15日
资讯
美国公民自由联盟对Aon人工智能招聘工具发起投诉美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）于2024年6月6日向美国联邦贸易委员会提交了针对Aon的投诉，挑战其候选人评估工具的合法性和偏见问题。ACLU指控Aon的评估工具，如Adept-15人格测试和vidAssess-AI视频评估工具，在市场上虚假宣称“无偏见”并能“增进多样性”，实际上这些工具可能基于种族和残疾（如自闭症和心理健康障碍）歧视求职者。此外，ACLU还提到，Aon的gridChallenge认知能力评估也显示出种族表现上的差异。针对这些指控，Aon回应称其评估工具遵循行业最佳实践和EEOC、法律及专业指导原则。ACLU此举揭示了在职场包容性与合规性之间的紧张关系，呼吁更严格审查这些广泛使用的人力资源技术工具。
在人力资源技术迅速发展的世界中，人工智能（AI）扮演着关键角色，承诺将简化流程并增强招聘实践的效率。然而，AI整合到这些实践中经常引发关于公平性和歧视的重大争议。最近的一个例子涉及到全球专业服务公司Aon，该公司的AI驱动的招聘评估工具因美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的指控而受到审查。ACLU向美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正式投诉Aon，突显了关于AI在招聘中应用的重要对话。
ACLU投诉的基础
ACLU指控Aon欺骗性地营销其招聘评估工具——特别是Adept-15性格评估、vidAssess-AI视频面试工具和gridChallenge认知能力测试——这些工具被宣称为无偏见并有助于提高工作场所的多样性。根据ACLU的说法，这些声明不仅具有误导性，而且可能违法，因为这些工具可能会基于种族和残疾（如自闭症、抑郁症和焦虑症）歧视求职者。这些工具使用算法和AI进行评估，根据候选人的积极性、情感意识和活力等特征进行评估，这些特征往往与工作表现无直接关联，且可能对某些残疾人群产生不成比例的影响。
Aon的辩护和行业实践
面对ACLU的指控，Aon为其产品辩护，声称这些工具是根据法律和专业指南（包括平等就业机会委员会EEOC设定的指南）设计的。Aon强调他们的工具是雇主用于做出更具包容性招聘决策的更广泛评估工具集的一部分。此外，Aon还指出其工具的效率和成本效益，认为这些工具比传统方法更少歧视性。
法律和道德含义
这场争议引发了关于使用AI进行就业的重要法律和道德问题。美国的法律，包括美国残疾人法案（ADA）和民权法案第七章，要求就业中的非歧视实践，涵盖从招聘到工作场所的所有方面。ACLU向FTC的投诉不仅提示可能违反这些法律，还将问题框定为不仅是就业歧视，还涉及消费者欺诈的问题。
更广泛的行业关注
ACLU对Aon的行动是更广泛运动的一部分，旨在审查用于招聘的AI工具。批评者认为，虽然这些技术提供了无偏见决策的潜力，但它们常常缺乏透明度，并可能无意中编码了其开发者或它们所训练的数据集的偏见。这一问题由于这些工具的专有性质而变得更加复杂，这阻碍了对它们的公平性和效率进行彻底的公众评估。
潜在后果和改革
ACLU对Aon的投诸可能对人力资源技术行业产生深远影响。如果FTC决定调查或制裁Aon，可能会导致对AI在招聘中的使用进行更严格的监管，可能为整个行业中类似工具的市场营销和实施设定先例。对依赖这些工具的公司而言，此案可能是重新评估其算法以确保符合反歧视法律的关键提示。
此外，此案凸显了技术专家、法律专家、政策制定者和民权倡导者之间需要进行持续对话的需求，以确保AI的进步能够增强而非破坏工作场所的平等。随着AI继续渗透到各种人力资源方面，制定维护反歧视和坚持道德原则的标准和最佳实践将至关重要。
结论
ACLU对Aon的投诉提醒我们在AI时代，创新、监管和权利之间的复杂相互作用。虽然AI为HR提供了变革的潜力，但它也需要谨慎处理以防止新形式的歧视。这个案例可能会成为AI在招聘伦理辩论中的一个里程碑，促使所有利益相关者考虑其技术选择的更广泛影响。随着法律程序的展开，人力资源技术行业将密切关注，意识到AI在招聘中的未来现在受到更审慎的公众和法律审视。
Unveiling Bias: The Controversy Over Aon's AI Hiring Tools and the ACLU's Challenge
In the rapidly evolving world of human resources technology, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role, promising to streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of hiring practices. However, the integration of AI into these practices often sparks significant debate regarding fairness and discrimination. A recent example of this controversy involves Aon, a global professional services firm, whose AI-driven hiring assessment tools have come under scrutiny by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU's allegations against Aon, leading to a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), underline a critical dialogue about the implications of AI in hiring.
The Basis of the ACLU’s Complaint
The ACLU has accused Aon of deceptively marketing its hiring assessment tools — specifically the Adept-15 personality assessment, the vidAssess-AI video interviewing tool, and the gridChallenge cognitive ability test — as bias-free and conducive to improving diversity in the workplace. According to the ACLU, these claims are not only misleading but also potentially unlawful, as the tools may perpetuate discrimination against job seekers based on race and disabilities such as autism, depression, and anxiety. These tools, which utilize algorithmic processes and AI, are said to evaluate candidates on traits like positivity, emotional awareness, and liveliness, which are often not directly relevant to job performance and may disproportionately affect individuals with certain disabilities.
Aon’s Defense and Industry Practices
In response to the ACLU's claims, Aon has defended its products by asserting that they are designed in compliance with legal and professional guidelines, including those set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Aon emphasizes that their tools are part of a broader array of assessments used by employers to make more inclusive hiring decisions. Moreover, Aon points to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their tools, arguing that they are less discriminatory than traditional methods.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The controversy raises significant legal and ethical questions about the use of AI in employment. U.S. laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandate non-discriminatory practices in employment, covering all aspects from hiring to workplace accommodation. The ACLU's complaint to the FTC, an agency tasked with protecting America’s consumers and competition, suggests potential violations of these laws, framing the issue not only as one of employment discrimination but also of consumer deception.
Broader Industry Concerns
The ACLU's actions against Aon are part of a larger movement to scrutinize AI tools used for hiring. Critics argue that while these technologies offer the potential for unbiased decision-making, they often lack transparency and can inadvertently encode the biases of their developers or the data sets they are trained on. This issue is compounded by the proprietary nature of these tools, which prevents a thorough public assessment of their fairness and effectiveness.
Potential Repercussions and Reforms
The outcome of the ACLU’s complaint could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry. A decision by the FTC to investigate or sanction Aon could lead to more stringent regulations governing the development and use of AI in hiring, potentially setting a precedent for how similar tools are marketed and implemented across the industry. For companies that rely on these tools, the case may serve as a critical prompt to reevaluate their algorithms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, this case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between technologists, legal experts, policymakers, and civil rights advocates to ensure that advancements in AI serve to enhance, rather than undermine, workplace equality. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of human resources, the development of standards and best practices that safeguard against discrimination and uphold ethical principles will be crucial.
Conclusion
The ACLU's complaint against Aon is a reminder of the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and rights in the age of AI. While AI offers transformative potentials for HR, it also demands a cautious approach to prevent new forms of discrimination. This case may well become a landmark in the ongoing debate over AI ethics in hiring, urging all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of their technological choices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the HR technology industry will be watching closely, aware that the future of AI in hiring is now under a more discerning public and legal microscope.
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
