Category: State and Local Law

Montana Passes 9th Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Law in the U.S.

On May 19, 2023, Montana’s Governor signed Senate Bill 384, the Consumer Data Privacy Act. Montana joins California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia in enacting a comprehensive consumer privacy law. The law is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2024.

When does the law apply?

The law applies to a person who conducts business in the state of Montana and:

  • Controls or processes the personal data of not less than 50,000 consumers (defined as Montana residents), excluding data controlled or processed solely to complete a payment transaction.
  • Controls and processes the personal data of not less than 25,000 consumers and derive more than 25% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data.

Hereafter these covered persons are referred to as controllers.

The following entities are exempt from coverage under the law:

  • Body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district, or agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state;
  • Nonprofit organization;
  • Institution of higher education;
  • National securities association that is registered under 15 U.S.C. 78o-3 of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  • A financial institution or an affiliate of a financial institution governed by Title V of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act;
  • Covered entity or business associate as defined in the privacy regulations of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA);

Who is protected by the law?

Under the law, a protected consumer is defined as an individual who resides in the state of Montana.

However, the term consumer does not include an individual acting in a commercial or employment context or as an employee, owner, director, officer, or contractor of a company partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit, or government agency whose communications or transactions with the controller occur solely within the context of that individual’s role with the company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit, or government agency.

What data is protected by the law?

The statute protects personal data defined as information that is linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable individual.

There are several exemptions to protected personal data, including for data protected under HIPAA and other federal statutes.

What are the rights of consumers?

Under the new law, consumers have the right to:

  • Confirm whether a controller is processing the consumer’s personal data
  • Access Personal Data processed by a controller
  • Delete personal data
  • Obtain a copy of personal data previously provided to a controller.
  • Opt-out of the processing of the consumer’s personal data for the purpose of targeted advertising, sales of personal data, and profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects.

What obligations do businesses have?

The controller shall comply with requests by a consumer set forth in the statute without undue delay but no later than 45 days after receipt of the request.

If a controller declines to act regarding a consumer’s request, the business shall inform the consumer without undue delay, but no later than 45 days after receipt of the request, of the reason for declining.

The controller shall also conduct and document a data protection assessment for each of their processing activities that present a heightened risk of harm to a consumer.

How is the law enforced?

Under the statute, the state attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce violations of the statute. There is no private right of action under Montana’s statute.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023

For more Privacy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Delaware Legalizes Recreational Marijuana

Delaware became the latest state to legalize recreational marijuana on April 23, 2023 when the state’s Governor failed to veto two bills that allow for the legalization of marijuana, effective immediately.  Individuals who are 21 years of age and older may possess and use up to one ounce of marijuana.  It will be taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.

The law provides that nothing in the law is “intended to impact or impose any requirement or restriction on employers with respect to terms and conditions of employment including but not limited to accommodation, policies or discipline.”  This means that employers in Delaware do not have to permit marijuana use at work or during work time and still may drug test for marijuana and take disciplinary action for positive test results.

Employers should bear in mind, however, that the use of medical marijuana still is protected under Delaware law, as it has been since 2011. The new recreational marijuana law does not change the rights of users of medical marijuana.  Specifically, the Delaware Medical Marijuana Act provides, in pertinent part, that “an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment . . . if the discrimination is based upon either of the following: a. [t]he person’s status as a cardholder; or b. [a] registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana . . . unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during his hours of employment.”

Delaware joins a growing list of states that have adult-use recreational marijuana laws.  Employers should review their drug and alcohol policies frequently to ensure that they are complying with all applicable state and local marijuana laws.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023
For more Cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

New York HERO Act Enhanced Workplace Safety Committee Enforcement Provisions Enacted

On December 28, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 9450, which added new enforcement provisions to the New York Health And Essential Rights Act’s (NY HERO Act) workplace safety committee requirements. The new law went into effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

As a reminder, the NY HERO Act was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 1 of the NY HERO Act required employers to adopt and distribute an infectious disease exposure prevention plan (“safety plan”) and activate such safety plan upon the designation of an airborne infectious disease as a highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health. While no current designation is in effect (the designation of COVID-19 ended on March 17, 2022), employers should be prepared to activate their safety plan in the event of a designation, and should review their existing safety plan periodically for any updates as required by the NY HERO Act.

Section 2, the often-overlooked portion of the NY HERO Act, provides employees the right to establish and administer a joint labor-management workplace safety committee. The recent law adds new enforcement provisions, and serves as an amendment to this section of the NY HERO Act. It requires employers to recognize workplace safety committees formed by employees pursuant to the NY HERO Act within five business days of receiving a request from employees for committee recognition. Failure to do so will result in penalties of $50 a day until the violation is remedied. Previously, there was no explicit timeframe required for employers to recognize a workplace safety committee and no related specific civil penalties.

While the New York Department of Labor has issued FAQ guidance related to Section 1 of the NY HERO Act, the new law is the first development or update regarding Section 2 since the NY HERO Act was enacted and subsequently amended.

The new law serves as a reminder that the NY HERO Act, and, relatedly, COVID-19’s impact on the workplace, are not completely in the rearview mirror. Employers should confirm their compliance with the NY HERO Act by:

  • evaluating their existing safety plans and revising or updating them as needed;
  • distributing their safety plans to all new hires;
  • including their safety plans in all updated handbooks;
  • ensuring their safety plans are posted in a visible and prominent location in the workplace; and
  • reviewing the workplace safety committee obligations and requirements, especially in light of the added enforcement provisions.

Article By Susan Gross Sholinsky, Steven M. Swirsky, Robert J. O’Hara, Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper, and Christopher Shur of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2023 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Governor Wolf Signs Act 151 Addressing Data Breaches Within Local Entities

On Thursday, November 3, 2022, Governor Tom Wolf signed PA Senate Bill 696, also known as Act 151 of 2022 or the Breach of Personal Information Notification Act.  Act 151 amends Pennsylvania’s existing Breach of Personal Information Notification Act, strengthening protections for consumers, and imposing stricter requirements for state agencies, state agency contractors, political subdivisions, and certain individuals or businesses doing business in the Commonwealth.  Act 151 expands the definition of “personal information,” and requires Commonwealth entities to implement specific notification procedures in the event that a Commonwealth resident’s unencrypted and unredacted personal information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person.  The requirements for state-level and local entities differ slightly; this Alert will address the impact of Act 151 on local entities.  While this law does not take effect until May 22, 2023, it is critical that all entities impacted by this law be aware of these changes.

For the purposes of Act 151, the term “local entities” includes municipalities, counties, and public schools.  The term “public school” encompasses all school districts, charter schools, intermediate units, cyber charter schools, and area career and technical schools.  Act 151 requires that, in the event of a security breach of the system used by a local entity to maintain, store, or manage computerized data that includes personal information, the local entity must notify affected individuals within seven business days of the determination of the breach.  In addition, local entities must notify the local district attorney of the breach within three business days.

The definition of “personal information” has been updated, and includes a combination of (1) an individual’s first name or first initial and last name, and (2) one or more of the following items, if unencrypted and unredacted:

  • Social Security number;
  • Driver’s license number;
  • Financial account numbers or credit or debit card numbers, combined with any required security code or password;
  • Medical information;
  • Health insurance information; or
  • A username or password in combination with a password or security question and answer.

The last three items were added by this amendment.  Additionally, the new language provides that “personal information” does not include information that is made publicly available from government records or widely distributed media.

Act 151 defines previously undefined terms, drawing a distinction between “determination” and “discovery” of a breach, and setting forth different obligations relating to each.  “Determination,” under the act, is defined as, “a verification or reasonable certainty that a breach of the security of the system has occurred.”  “Discovery” is defined as, “the knowledge of or reasonable suspicion that a breach of the security of the system has occurred.”  This distinction affords entities the ability to investigate a potential breach before the more onerous notification requirements are triggered.  A local entity’s obligation to notify Commonwealth residents is triggered when the entity has reached a determination that a breach has occurred.  Further, any vendor that maintains, stores, or manages computerized data on behalf of a local entity is responsible for notifying the local entity upon discovery of a breach, but the local entity is ultimately responsible for making the determinations and discharging any remaining duties under Act 151.

Another significant update afforded by Act 151 is the addition of an electronic notification procedure.  Previously, notice could be given: (1) by written letter mailed to the last known home address of the individual; (2) telephonically, if certain requirements are met; (3) by email if a prior business relationship exists and the entity has a valid email address; or (4) by substitute notice if the cost of providing notice would exceed $100,000, the affected class of individuals to be notified exceeds 175,000, or the entity does not have sufficient contact information.  Now, in addition to the email option, entities can provide an electronic notice that directs the individual whose personal information may have been materially compromised to promptly change their password and security question or answer, or to take any other appropriate steps to protect their information.

Act 151 also provides that all entities that maintain, store, or manage computerized personal information on behalf of the Commonwealth must utilize encryption –  this provision originally applied only to employees and contractors of Commonwealth agencies, but was broadened in Act 151.  Further, the act provides that all entities that maintain, store, or manage computerized personal information on behalf of the Commonwealth must maintain policies relating to the transmission and storage of personal information – such policies were previously developed by the Governor’s Office of Administration.

Finally, under Act 151, any entity that is subject to and in compliance with certain healthcare and federal privacy laws is deemed to be in compliance with Act 151.  For example, an entity that is subject to and in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is deemed compliant with Act 151.

Although Act 151 is an amendment to prior legislation, the updates create potential exposure for local entities and the vendors that serve them.  For local municipalities, schools, and counties, compliance will require a proactive approach – local entities will have to familiarize themselves with the new requirements, be mindful of the personal information they hold, and ensure that their vendors are aware of their obligations.  Further, local entities will be required to implement encryption protocols, and prepare and maintain storage and transmission policies.

Originally Published by Babst Calland November 29, 2022. Article By Michael T. Korns and Ember K. Holmes of Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C.

Click here to read more legislative news on the National Law Review website.

© Copyright Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.

More Places, Less Spaces: California is Driving Down Development Costs

In an effort to decrease the skyrocketing development costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) aims to eliminate a key obstacle for new developments: parking. More specifically, starting on January 1, 2023, this law prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for residential, commercial and other development projects if the project is located within a 1/2-mile of a “High-Quality Transit Corridor”[1] or a “Major Transit Stop.”[2]

Prior to the enactment of AB 2097, cities and counties retained the authority to impose a minimum number of parking spaces required for new developments. This condition is typically the result of a calculation found in the city or county’s zoning code, and is usually determined based on the use or type of project being developed, regardless of project specifics. Oftentimes, the use of a universal calculation results in excess parking. For example, a new restaurant may be required to provide 4 parking spaces for every 100 square feet of use even if the restaurant concept does not necessitate a large number of parking spaces or if the restaurant is in a pedestrian- or transit-friendly location. While California remains in the throes of a housing crisis, some areas within the state boast an oversupply of parking spaces. For example, Los Angeles County has 18.6 million parking spaces, which equates to almost 2 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[3] This statistic is similar in the Bay Area where there are 1.9 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[4]

Moreover, not only can a static calculation result in unnecessary parking (and blacktop), it can add untenable costs to new developments. For example, new residential developments are typically required to provide 1 to 2 parking spaces per unit. The requirement results in an additional cost of approximately $36,000 per unit.[5] As the cost to develop residential projects is at an all-time high,[6] builders are welcoming all efforts to reduce the cost and eliminate unnecessary development “standards.”

To avoid a complete free-for-all, under AB 2097, public agencies will still retain the ability to impose a minimum parking requirement, if, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, the public agency makes a written finding that not imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement would have a substantial negative impact. However, there are a number of exceptions to this caveat that wholly restrict public agencies from imposing a minimum parking condition. These exceptions include certain affordable housing projects or small residential housing projects.

For parking spaces that are voluntarily included in proposed project designs, public agencies may still require: (i) spaces for car share vehicles; (ii) parking spaces to be shared with the public; or (iii) for the project to charge for parking. Nothing in AB 2097 shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that new developments provide for the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (i.e., EV-charging stations) or to provide parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities.

AB 2097 is intended to give developers more flexibility and lower the costs associated with development, which will – hopefully – result in an influx of housing and the redevelopment of vacant buildings where it may not have been previously feasible to provide parking in a quantity necessary to meet a jurisdiction’s minimum requirements. By reducing the oversupply of parking, there is the expectation that the use of mass transit will increase, thereby reducing traffic, greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Critics of AB 2097 are concerned that the elimination of parking requirements could actually weaken local efforts to provide more affordable housing as many public agencies offer reductions in parking requirements to incentivize developers to add on-site affordable housing units to the project.[7] There is also concern that, despite the decrease in availability, many residents will continue to own vehicles, which – ironically – will lead to increase parking demand and congestion.

Although there is a lot of speculation of AB 2097, many are hopeful that it is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing California’s housing crisis. As Governor Gavin Newsom stated when he signed the bill: “Reducing housing costs for everyday Californians and eliminating emissions from cars: That’s what we call a win-win.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] “High-Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with a fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.

[2] “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by bus or rail, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of fifteen minutes or less during peak commute periods.

[3] Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia. Assembly Committee on Local Government – AB 2097 (Friedman) – As Introduced February 14, 2022. (April 20, 2022. )

[4] Inventorying San Francisco Bay Area Parking Spaces: Technical Report Describing Objectives, Methods, and Results. Mineta Transportation Institute – San Jose State University. (February 2022.)

[5] Some estimates place the aveage cost of one residential unit at $1,000,000 in development costs. (The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkley. A Terner Center Report [March 2020].)

[6] Dillon, Liam and Posten, Ben. Affordable Housing in California Now Routinely Tops $1 Million per Apartment to Build. Los Angeles Times. (June 2, 2022.)

[7] California Daily News.

Article By Amanda S. Lee of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more real estate legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Goes To State Supreme Court

A year-and-a-half ago, we predicted that in the PFAS litigation world, medical monitoring claims would quickly become a claim that finds its way into numerous PFAS cases with ever-increasing risks and cost to companies embroiled in the lawsuits. On November 15, 2022, the viability of medical monitoring claims with respect to PFAS found its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for oral argument. While courts are currently divided as to whether medical monitoring claims should be permitted to proceed without proof of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the result of the New Hampshire Supreme Court case will likely have ripple effects in other states where medical monitoring claims continue to proliferate.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Costs – The Current Landscape

PFAS medical monitoring costs is not a new topic for the litigation – it is something that plaintiffs’ counsel push for either as a damages component to a cause of action or as a term for settlement negotiations in PFAS cases. Yet, to date, only a few states allow for medical monitoring costs to be pled as a cause of action unto itself. Instead, states either require an underlying harm to be proven before the courts will consider awarding medical monitoring costs or states have outright rejected the medical monitoring theory of damages altogether.

The American Law Institute (ALI) is a prestigious legal organization that develops “Restatements” of various laws in the United States, including tort law. The ALI’s work and the Restatements, while not binding on courts, are widely regarded by attorneys, judges and legal scholars as a comprehensive understanding of many of the nuanced parts of legal theories. Through decades of work and revisions, the Restatement (Third) of Torts is now nearing the final stages of completion.

Significantly, the Restatement (Third) is contemplating including recommendations that courts allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages for medical monitoring expenses, even though the plaintiffs do not have any present bodily harm. With respect to PFAS litigation, medical monitoring costs have been awarded in some states or through settlements to plaintiffs alleging some degree of injury from PFAS. The Restatement (Third) approach, though, opens the door to citizens in the country with no bodily injury from PFAS to participate in free (to the plaintiffs) medical monitoring to ensure that health issues do not arise related to PFAS.

The ALI’s approach to medical monitoring is a topic that is hotly contested in many legal circles, as awarding medical monitoring costs absent any injury is a highly controversial recommendation that seems to upend decades of tort law. Opponents argue that one of the very tenants of tort law is that there is an injury to the plaintiff – without an injury, there is no tort. Courts are currently split on whether they permit medical monitoring costs to be awarded to plaintiffs without any injury.

PFAS Medical Monitoring In New Hampshire

In Kevin Brown v. Saint Gobain, the plaintiffs’ drinking water was allegedly contaminated with PFOA as a result of a Saint-Gobain facility that discharged PFOA into local waterways, which fed drinking water sources. The case made its way through the USDC-NH, but the defendant certified the question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court of whether New Hampshire law permits the plaintiffs, who are asymptomatic, to bring a claim for the costs of their being periodically medically monitored for symptoms of disease caused by exposure to PFOA.

At oral argument on the issue, the parties and the Court held a spirited debate as to whether the seventeen states that allow medical monitoring as a form of relief are similar legally to New Hampshire, such that the state should adopt a broad interpretation and allow medical monitoring claims without proof of present injury. Defendant and parties who filed amicus briefs in support of defendants argued that the Court should defer to the legislature on the issue, as the legislature has primary responsibility for declaring public policy.

Impact On Companies

The issue of permitting PFAS medical monitoring claims without any present injury is one that has enormous impacts not only on PFAS manufacturers, but any downstream commerce company that finds itself in litigation (often class action lawsuits) alleging medical monitoring damages. The litigation is already shifting in such a way that downstream commerce companies (i.e. – companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but utilized PFAS in manufacturing or products) are being named in lawsuits for personal injury and environmental pollution at increasing rates. Allowing a medical monitoring component to the recoverable costs that can pled would significantly raise the risks and potential liability costs to downstream companies.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in various industries evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Five New Employment Laws that Every California Employer Should Know

A new year brings new employment laws for California employers.  California employers will want to begin revising employee policies and handbooks now, so that they are prepared to comply with these new laws when the majority of them go into effect on January 1, 2023.  Here are five new employment laws that every California employer should know:

AB 1041 (Expanded Definition of “Family Member” for Medical and Sick Leave)

Through AB 1041, the California legislature amended Government Code section 12945.2 and Labor Code section 245.5 to expand the definition of “designated person” for purposes of employee medical leave.  Section 12945.2 provides qualifying employees with up to 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for unpaid family care and medical leave.  Section 245.5 relates to California paid sick leave.  Both sections permit an employee to take protected leave to care for a “family member,” which is currently defined as a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner.  With the passage of AB 1041, the Legislature added a “designated person” to this list of “family members” for whom an employee may take protected leave.  A “designated person” is defined as “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.”  In light of this broad definition, employers should be prepared to provide employees with leave to care for a wider range of persons.  An employee may identify his or her designated person at the time of requesting protected leave.  However, an employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period.

AB 1949 (Bereavement Leave)

AB 1949 adds section 12945.7 to the Government Code, in order to provide employees with protected leave for bereavement.  Under this new law, eligible employees may request up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a qualifying family member.  Family member is defined as a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent in law.  Although the employee must complete bereavement leave within three months of the family member’s death, the employer may not require that the five days be used consecutively.  Statutory bereavement leave is unpaid, but the employer must allow the employee to use any accrued and unused paid vacation, personal leave, sick leave, or other paid time off for this purpose.  Section 12945.7 prohibits discrimination, interference or retaliation against an employee for taking bereavement leave; also, the employer must maintain confidentiality when an employee takes bereavement leave. Finally, section 12945.7 does not apply to certain union employees, with an existing agreement regarding bereavement leave.

SB 1162 (Posting Pay Ranges and EEO Reporting Requirements)

SB 1162 modifies Government Code section 12999 and Labor Code section 432.3 to require employers to provide candidates with salary ranges on job postings, report employee compensation and demographic information to the California Civil Rights Department (formerly the DFEH) on an annual basis, and retain relevant records.  For job postings (including those posted by third parties), employers with 15 or more employees will be required to include a pay range, which is defined as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.  In addition to the current requirement that, upon request, the employer must provide a candidate a pay range, the employer must now also provide existing employees with a pay range, when requested.  Failure to comply with the pay range disclosure or record retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

The new reporting requirement concerns annual employer pay data reports.  Employers must now report the median and mean hourly rate by each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, within each job category, with the first report due on May 10, 2023, based on 2022 pay data.  Employers with 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors must now produce data on pay, hours worked, race/ethnicity, and gender information in a separate report.  Employers who fail to timely file these required reports face civil penalties of up to $200 per employee.

Finally, employers must retain records of job titles and wage rate histories for each employee for the duration of the employee’s employment and three years after termination.  Failure to comply with these retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

AB 2188 (Off the Job Cannabis Use Protection)

Effective January 1, 2024, AB 2188 adds section 12954 to the Government Code, which prohibits employers from discriminating against a person because of cannabis use while off the job, with some exceptions.  Employers may take action against a person who fails a pre-employment drug test, or other employer-required drug test, that does “not screen for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites.”  This is because, according to the California Legislature, cannabis “matabolites do not indicate impairment, only that the individual has consumed cannabis in the last few weeks.”  The employer may administer a performance-based impairment test, and terminate any employee who is found to be impaired in the workplace.  This new law does not apply to employees in the building or construction industry, or in positions requiring a federal background investigation or clearance, and does not preempt state or federal laws that require employees to be tested for controlled substances.

AB 152 (COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Extension)

AB 152 modified Labor Code section 248.6 and 248.7 in order to extend COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL), previously blogged about here, which was expected to expire on September 30, 2022.  This new modification allows California employees to use any remaining SPSL through December 31, 2022.  It does not provide employees with new or additional SPSL.  In a departure from the original version of the law, when an employer requires an employee to take a COVID-19 test five days or later after a positive test result, the employer is now permitted to require the employee to submit to a second diagnostic test within no less than 24 hours.  If the employee refuses, the employer may decline to provide additional SPSL.  The employer obligation to cover the cost of any employee COVID-19 tests remains in effect.

Article By Kate Gold and Wesley C. Shelton of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more employment law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

California PFAS Legislation Will Dramatically Impact Businesses

We previously reported on three significant pieces of California PFAS legislation that were before California’s Governor Newsom for ratification. Two of the bills were passed, which means that several categories of products will have applicable PFAS bans. The third bill was not signed by the Governor, which would have required companies to report certain data to the state for goods  sold in or otherwise brought into California that contain PFAS.

With increasing attention being given to PFAS in consumer goods in the media, scientific community, and in state legislatures, the California PFAS bills underscore the importance of companies anywhere in the manufacturing or supply chain for consumer goods to immediately assess the impact of the proposed PFAS legislation on corporate practices, and make decisions regarding continued use of PFAS in products, as opposed to substituting for other substances.  At the same time, companies impacted by the PFAS legislation must be aware that the new laws pose risks to the companies involvement in PFAS litigation in both the short and long term.

California PFAS Bills

One of our prior reports was on the first significant PFAS bill that Governor Newsom was expected to sign into law – AB 2771 – and which was indeed passed into law. The bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, hold, or offer for sale any cosmetics product that contains any intentionally added PFAS. The law would go into effect on January 1, 2025. The bill defines a cosmetics products as “an article for retail sale or professional use intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.”

The second bill signed into law by the Governor is AB 1817, which bans the use of PFAS in textiles manufactured and sold in California. More specifically, the bill prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, any person from “manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS” and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions. The bill requires a manufacturer of a textile article to provide persons that offer the product for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the textile article is in compliance with these provisions and does not contain any regulated PFAS. The bill specifically regulates three categories of textiles:

(1) “Textile articles” means textile goods of a type customarily and ordinarily used in households and businesses, and include, but are not limited to, apparel, accessories, handbags, backpacks, draperies, shower curtains, furnishings, upholstery, beddings, towels, napkins, and tablecloths;

(2) “Outdoor apparel” means clothing items intended primarily for outdoor activities, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, skiing, climbing, bicycling, and fishing; and

(3) “Apparel”, defined as “clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions, including, but not limited to, undergarments, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, overalls, bodysuits, costumes, vests, dancewear, suits, saris, scarves, tops, leggings, school uniforms, leisurewear, athletic wear, sports uniforms, everyday swimwear, formal wear, onesies, bibs, diapers, footwear, and everyday uniforms for workwear…outdoor apparel and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions.

The bill that California’s Governor vetoed was AB 2247, which would have established reporting requirements for companies that utilize products or substances that contain PFAS and which are used in California in the stream of commerce. “The bill would [have] require[d], on or before July 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, a manufacturer, as defined, of PFAS or a product or a product component containing intentionally added PFAS that, during the prior calendar year, is sold, offered for sale, distributed, or offered for promotional purposes in, or imported into, the state to register the PFAS or the product or product component containing intentionally added PFAS, and specified other information, on the publicly accessible data collection interface.”

Impact of California PFAS Legislation On Businesses

California PFAS legislation places some of the most significant and widely used consumer products in the crosshairs with respect to PFAS. While other states have banned or otherwise regulated PFAS in certain specific consumer goods, California’s bills are noteworthy given the economic impact that it will have, considering that California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

It is of the utmost importance for businesses along the whole cosmetics supply chain to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds.  While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.

Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. States are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods interstate, it is important to understand how those various standards will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

California Law Prohibits Cooperation with Out-of-State Entities Regarding Lawful Abortion

In response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1242 into law, which “prohibits law enforcement and California corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding a lawful abortion in California.”

In particular, AB 1242 prohibits California companies that provide electronic communication services from complying with out-of-state requests from law enforcement regarding an investigation into, or enforcement of, laws restricting abortion.

Sponsored by California Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, AB 1242:

takes an innovative legal approach to protect user data. The bill prohibits California law enforcement agencies from assisting or cooperating with the investigation or enforcement of a violation related to abortion that is lawful in California. This law thereby blocks out-of-state law enforcement officers from executing search warrants on California corporations in furtherance of enforcing or investigating an anti-abortion crime. For example, if another state wants to track the movement of a woman traveling to California seeking reproductive health care, the state would be blocked from accessing cell phone site tower location data of the woman by serving a warrant to the tech company in California. In addition, if another state wants Google search history from a particular IP address, it could not serve an out-of-state search warrant at Google headquarters in CA without an attestation that the evidence is not related to investigation into abortion services. Although the first state to enact such a law, as California often is when it comes to privacy rights, we anticipate that other states will follow suit and that these laws will be hotly contested in litigation.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

California Enacts Legal Protections for Cannabis Insurance Providers

Several cannabis-related bills were signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 18, 2022, including Assembly Bill 2568 (AB 2568), which clarifies that it is not a crime for individuals and firms licensed by the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to provide insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activities. Though the California Civil Code was amended in 2018 to clarify that cannabis is the legal object of a contract, and it has been tacitly understood that insurance contracts are legal in California, the intent of this new law is to remove any uncertainty and to encourage further growth of admitted insurance products for California cannabis businesses.

AB 2568 adds section 26261 to the California Business and Professions Code, which states in relevant part: “An individual or firm that is licensed by the Department of Insurance does not commit a crime under California law solely for providing insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this division.”

Intent of the Law

The California Assembly’s Committee on Insurance explained the intent behind AB 2568 in a report issued earlier this year:

“The hesitancy of insurance providers to provide insurance for commercial cannabis is attributed to risk, since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, much of the insurance available in California is from surplus lines. This does not align with the federal government’s longstanding determination that it is in the public’s interest for states to regulate their own insurance marketplaces. Further, the argument has been refuted in federal case law brought about in Green Earth Wellness Center v. Attain Specialty Insurance Company (2016), which established that federal classification of cannabis is not relevant in an insurance provider’s determination to write an insurance policy.

It is important that commercial cannabis businesses have multiple options for insurance as they pursue licensure. AB 2568 clarifies that writing insurance for commercial cannabis does not constitute a crime, since cannabis is part of a legal, regulated market in California. This clarity will provide assurances to admitted insurers that they will not be in violation of any regulations and encourage them to provide an insurance product.”

In addition, AB 2568 was strongly supported by CDI, which argued that “we must provide commercial cannabis businesses with multiple, affordable options for insurance as they pursue and maintain state licensure.” CDI supports AB 2568 in part to “promote reliable insurance coverage for all aspects of these cannabis businesses to ensure that these businesses can continue to flourish just like any other business in this state.”

In a separate analysis, the California Senate Committee on Insurance inquired as to whether the bill would achieve the intended result of expanding insurance options for cannabis businesses. It concluded:

“This bill expressly states a protection under California Law for CDI licensees. This protection has been implied since the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2016, and in that same year a federal court gave a nod to insurers that writing cannabis [insurance] is permissible, but only one admitted company has fully waded into the market. On the one hand, insurers are famously risk averse, so this express statement of state law may go a long way for some to take the risk to sell cannabis coverage. But, federal illegality of cannabis could always be the larger barrier to entry for some companies than what the state laws say.”

The Senate report concludes that more study is needed to “consider additional efforts to effectuate the stated goal of growing the domestic market for cannabis insurance.”

Analysis

AB 2568 does not materially change existing California law since providing insurance services to properly licensed California businesses has been legal under state law since at least 2018. The bill, however, is meant to remove any lingering doubt on the topic and to encourage more insurance service providers to enter the market.

As we have previously reported, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk-benefit calculus has adequately shifted to justify entrance into the cannabis market without an unreasonable fear of prosecution. This certainly is true for the insurance industry.

Congress continues to prohibit the Department of Justice and other federal agencies from spending money to prosecute conduct that complies with state medical marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement, meanwhile, has not initiated any prosecution against a plant-touching or ancillary business involved in either adult-use cannabis or medical marijuana where the underlying marijuana business activity was compliant with state law and there was no other independent violation of law.

Despite this favorable outlook, it must be acknowledged that, without a change to the status quo, some degree of theoretical legal risk remains present for any plant-touching or ancillary business in the marijuana industry. Any decision to provide insurance-related services to the cannabis industry must be based on a well-informed understanding of the legal risks and the very challenging operating environment for state-licensed cannabis companies.

For more Food and Drug Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Wilson Elser