Lawsuit Challenges Missouri Cell Phone Tracking Law

The day before Missouri’s new cell phone tracking law was to take effect, Bolivar resident Mary Hopwood filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri seeking to have the new law declared unconstitutional. As I recently discussed, the new law requires phone companies to cooperate with police by tracking cell phone signals of 911 callers and/or by tracking a cell phone’s location when there is a danger of death or serious physical injury.

Hopwood’s lawsuit seeks to declare the new law as unconstitutional, alleging that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause prohibits states from enacting state statutes that conflict with federal law. Hopwood claims the Missouri law conflicts with several federal statutes, collectively known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The ECPA governs the disclosure of the information stored by communications companies.

According to the lawsuit, one of the alleged conflicts involves Missouri’s elimination of phone companies’ discretion in responding to and possible denial of frivolous requests by law enforcement. Another conflict concerns the law’s complete denial of civil causes of action against the companies for wrongfully disclosing information. Federal law currently provides phone companies such discretion and provides for the possibility of civil relief against the companies for various wrongful actions. Continue reading »

Legislative Update: Gov. Nixon Signs Cell Phone Tracking Bill

As recently reported by the New York Times, across America demands by law enforcement agencies for cell phone records and data are skyrocketing. In fact, records released by the top five cell phone carriers indicated that 1.3 million requests for cell phone location/tracking and other data were granted to law enforcement agencies in 2011 alone.

Originally utilized only by federal agents, much of the recent increase has resulted from smaller and local law enforcement agencies utilizing such requests in their regular law enforcement practices. As with almost all technological advances, the technology of modern cell phones and capabilities of tracking same have outpaced governmental regulation, which has allowed many law enforcement agencies to utilize this practice with little to no legislative or judicial oversight. Recently, as the practice has grown and attracted more attention, advocates on both sides of the issue have brought this issue into public debate.

Civil liberties advocates argue the increased usage of cellular surveillance and tracking raises certain constitutional questions as the legal standards for obtaining this cell phone data are generally lower and less clear than the traditional standards applied in circumstances where law enforcement attempts to wiretap or monitor traditional phone lines and conversations. Advocates are concerned these lower and less clear standards invite troublesome discretion and surreptitious usage amongst law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, privacy advocates have expressed concern in the fact that modern cell phones can provide incredibly detailed pictures of the user’s life, including information related to the user’s health, political affiliations, finances and other sensitive data. Continue reading »

Breastfeeding in Public: Mother Sues Sheriff’s Deputy

A mother is suing a sheriff’s deputy in Cook County, Illinois for violation of the state’s Right to Breastfeed Act. The mother, who was at the courthouse to apply for food-assistance benefits, was breastfeeding her seven-week-old daughter in the lobby of the courthouse. The mother and her daughter were covered by a blanket at the time of the feeding. The deputy demanded that the mother move from the courthouse lobby to a public bathroom to breastfeed the baby. Because the mother feared she would disrupt the application process for her benefits if she were kicked out of the courthouse, she quit feeding her daughter instead of moving.

Right to Breastfeed in Illinois

In 2004 the General Assembly of Illinois passed the Right to Breastfeed Act. The stated purpose being:

“The General Assembly finds that breast milk offers better nutrition, immunity, and digestion, and may raise a baby’s IQ, and that breastfeeding offers other benefits such as improved mother-baby bonding, and its encouragement has been established as a major goal of this decade by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund. The General Assembly finds and declares that the Surgeon General of the United States recommends that babies be fed breast milk, unless medically contraindicated, in order to attain an optimal healthy start.”

Continue reading »

Hold the Scissors – Telling Employee to Cut Hair Can Lead to Your Company Suffering a Haircut

We have all seen hairstyles that made us ask the question, “What were they thinking?” But when employees show up with such hairstyles in our place of business, do we have the right to restrict hairstyles? Does it make a difference if the hairstyle – or even a head covering – is due to the employee’s religious beliefs?

Recent federal court decisions have made it clear that an employer must tread carefully when addressing an employee’s choice of hairstyle or head dress. Otherwise, it could be the employer being subject to a “haircut,” rather than the employee.

Accommodating Religious Beliefs

Of particular concern are cases where an employee’s choice of hairstyle or head dress may have a religious basis. In such cases, an employer has a duty under Title VII of the federal civil rights act (and in most states under state law, as well) to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs. Failure to do so could result in the employer being found liable for religious discrimination, and being required to pay actual and punitive damages, as well as the employee’s legal fees.

In one recent case, reported in an EEOC press release issued April 27, 2012, the owner of a chain of Taco Bell restaurants agreed to pay $27,000 to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC because the owner had fired an employee who refused to cut his hair. The employee was a practicing Nazirite, who, in accordance with his religious beliefs, had not cut his hair in 15 years. After being employed at one of the owner’s restaurants for six years, the employee was told he would have to cut his hair if he wanted to retain his job. Even though he explained that his religion forbade him from cutting his hair, the employer insisted he had to do so if he wanted to keep his job. As the EEOC attorney handling the case, Lynette Barnes, explained in the press release, “No person should be forced to choose between his religion and his job when the company can provide an accommodation without suffering an undue hardship.” In addition to paying the $27,000, the employer agreed to institute a formal religious accommodation policy.

Continue reading »

The Facebook Folly: Why Browsing an Applicant’s Facebook Profile Could Present Problems for Missouri Employers

Within the past few months more and more news outlets have reported stories of employers asking job applicants for their Facebook login information. While many applicants understandably feel uncomfortable with the idea of their potential employer delving through their private lives, applicants are typically not in the position to decline.

This new trend has sparked an inevitable inquiry: is it legal? At this time, the answer is uncertain. Like many issues arising from the fast-paced and ever-changing world of the Internet and social media, the law has not caught up with the question. There does not appear to be a statute, regulation or court decision directly on point – either at the federal or state level. Consequently, experts on both sides of the issue have begun considering and arguing whether any statutes, regulations, or court decisions indirectly apply to the issue.

Missouri statute does not appear to directly prohibit such a practice; however, this does not mean it is wise for employers to engage in it. The reason has little to do with the actual practice of asking for the login information, but rather concerns what may be potentially discovered by such practice. No, I am not referring to finding rants about past employers or photos of bad decisions and misdemeanors. Employers should be concerned about finding family or pregnancy photos, photos of the applicant in the hospital, and/or religious views.

Continue reading »

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Foreclosure Laws

On April 12th, Missouri’s highest court granted lenders across the state a victory by ruling that banks only need to give defaulted borrowers, in foreclosure, credit for the amount of the foreclosure bid, as opposed to the fair market value of the property. The ruling is consistent with existing Missouri precedent, which, for decades, has maintained that the sale price of a foreclosed property is determinative with respect to the deficiency owed by the borrower to the bank, which is the remaining balance on the loan for which the lender can sue.

In the case, First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, the borrower, Fischer & Frichtel, a Missouri real estate developer, defaulted on loans to First Bank, which then foreclosed on properties securing the loan. First Bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. The lender proceeded to sue the borrower for the deficiency balance remaining on the loan. The borrower defended the case by alleging that the proper method of determining the deficiency was not the sale price at the foreclosure sale, but rather, the fair market value of the property. In so doing, the borrower essentially sought a modification of existing Missouri law with respect to calculations for suing on deficiency against a defaulted borrower. Fischer & Frichtel maintained that Missouri should align itself with other states which require a lender to determine the fair market value of the foreclosed property and apply that amount, which is generally higher than the foreclosure price, to the loan balance before suing a borrower.

The borrower argued that the current law often grants lenders a windfall after a foreclosure. Foreclosure sales require cash buyers on the day of the sale, except that the foreclosing lender can simply bid as a credit against the amount of the indebtedness owed by the borrower. This allows lenders to often easily outbid potential purchasers who may not have cash readily available. If the lenders obtain the properties at a depressed sale price at the foreclosure, they can then resell the property to a third party, in an arms-length transaction, and are entitled to keep any profits from the resale of the foreclosed property, without applying those profits to the borrower’s loan balance.

Continue reading »

Is This by Consent? Changes to Missouri Supreme Court Rule Affect Use of Non-party Subpoenas

Part of a series on issues related to Manufacturers, Distributors and International Trade

A major change involving subpoenas to non-parties has hit the business world in the state of Missouri.

A new amendment to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules now requires non-party record custodians to physically appear at deposition to produce subpoenaed items, unless all parties to the litigation have agreed that the subpoenaed party may produce the items without appearing.

The amendment changes the prevailing practice where parties send out subpoenas to third parties with a letter explaining that they will be excused from appearing at deposition if they produce the requested items along with what is known as a business records affidavit.

Rule 57.09, as amended, now requires parties to first obtain consent from all other parties to the litigation before a subpoenaed witness may produce documents without attending the deposition. This agreement must be communicated to the witness in writing. Absent this agreement, a witness must appear to produce subpoenaed items at deposition.

What does this mean to you? If you receive a subpoena, you may only produce the documents to the party serving the subpoena without appearing at deposition if that party represents to you in writing (e.g., in a letter) that all other parties have consented to production of the docume

nts without need for you to appear at the deposition. Such a letter should protect you from allegations that you improperly produced records by mail, instead of bringing the documents to the deposition. You do not need to see the actual agreement. If you have any questions as to whether you can simply mail the documents, instead of appearing at deposition, you should either call your attorney for advice or simply wait and bring the documents at the time and place designated in the subpoena.

Continue reading »

A Long Road to HIPAA Compliance: Privacy and Security Audits

Since the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was implemented in 2003, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not conducted a formalized plan for auditing health care providers, insurance plans and other covered entities … until now.

OCR recently announced its pilot program to audit covered entities for privacy and security compliance and says in 2012 it will conduct up to 150 audits in their effort to ensure that covered entities and their business associates are complying with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and the Breach Notification Standards. The OCR website provides useful information about this program and its objectives.

Previously, there was no mandated auditing process as a part of HIPAA, but rather reviews of covered entities typically would occur as complaints were raised by patients or consumers. With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) amended portions of HIPAA and requires HHS to develop procedures for auditing covered entities to verify compliance with the Privacy Rules and breach notification.

Covered entities need to ensure that their policies and procedures are updated for privacy and security compliance efforts. The entity must be prepared to provide documentation of its procedures, including with regard to breach notification, and documentation that its key personnel have been trained. Training does not include simply having a notebook containing policies and procedures that no one knows how to use.

According to the OCR website, the timeline is fairly quick, so individuals within the covered entity should be prepared to know what to do upon receiving a written notification that an audit is coming. If a “serious compliance issue” is found, OCR may initiate a compliance review to address the problem.

Of course, OCR will continue to accept complaints from individuals and covered entities through their privacy officers must continue to accept complaints from individuals. The goal of the pilot audit program appears to be to identify best practices and discover risks and vulnerabilities that otherwise have not come to light through the complaint process.

Covered entities that are prepared will shine, while those that are not prepared will have some explaining to do.

Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Organizations from Employment Discrimination Claims

On Wednesday, January 11, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted victory to religious organizations across the nation by confirming that their First Amendment freedoms insulate churches and schools from certain employment discrimination claims. Some will consider this a landmark decision, and it may be the Court’s most significant church-state ruling in decades. The decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC confirmed churches’ and schools’ autonomy to make decisions about whom to hire and fire, when those employees have job duties related to the ministry of the organization.

The Court ruled against an elementary school teacher in her employment discrimination claim against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, of Redford, Michigan, holding that the First Amendment protects the school from the reach of anti-discrimination laws, when the claims involve certain employees. The ruling was in line with many lower federal court rulings, but the issue had not previously been presented to the United States Supreme Court.

In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court confirmed the “ministerial exception” to certain anti-discrimination laws, concluding that the courts could not force the school to reinstate the teacher, Cheryl Perich. Perich claimed she was fired because she pursued a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging she suffered from narcolepsy.

While the Supreme Court confirmed the ministerial exception for religious organizations, such as churches and schools, it did not provide a strict test for determining exactly who was considered a “minister” for purposes of the exception. However, the Court’s ruling is clear that the exception applies to a class of employees broader than merely clergy. Perich was an educator, and was responsible for teaching secular courses, in addition to religion class, and she attended chapel with students. However, she had formal religious training and had recently been designated as a “called” teacher of the school, as opposed to a lay or contract employee. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is clear that her duties with respect to religious instruction at the school were sufficient for her to fall under the umbrella of the ministerial exception. The Court was further not persuaded that the small amount of time spent by the teacher teaching religion class during her work day was a significant factor, stating “the issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved with a stopwatch.”

Continue reading »

Pension Underfunding Contributes To Illinois Credit Downgrade

A recent article by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Moody’s Credit Agency has downgraded the State of Illinois’ credit rating to A2. The Post-Dispatch reports that this is the lowest mark Moody has given to any state, and, in part, the state’s severe pension underfunding has contributed to this credit problem.

The impetus of the story is new legislation passed by the Illinois legislature which outlaws “double dipping” by union officials. According to the article, union officials allegedly misused the pension system to secure large public pensions based upon short teaching stints and even substitute teaching for as little as a single day. Certainly this kind of abuse, if true, is, or should have been, discouraged by all the players involved, including both the state and the public pension plan trustees.

As highlighted by the rest of the article, Illinois continues to face a significant fiscal and budgetary problem, due to many factors, including public pension liabilities. The author notes that the crisis currently amounts to an $83 billion funding shortfall, resulting in the worst unfunded pension liability in the nation, with only 43% of the long-term pension obligations currently funded. Part of the fault certainly lies with the State of Illinois for its failure to fund in earlier, more prosperous times. If uncorrected, this funding shortfall will continue to cause headaches for Illinois lawmakers and public pension plans alike. Ultimately, if not corrected, the continuing trend could possibly cause personal financial losses to deserving retirees across the state.

While unions and public pension plan officials urge the state to fully fund the pension liabilities, lawmakers continue to evaluate plans for both the temporary and permanent fix to the state’s pension woes. Employees and retirees will be keeping a close eye on these legislative developments, and some options may threaten continued benefits for future and/or existing employees.

As the author of the article correctly points out, any attempt by the Illinois legislature to modify the retirement benefits of existing employees entitled to those pensions will almost certainly raise serious legal and constitutional questions that the Illinois, or perhaps even Federal courts, will ultimately decide.

Posted by Attorney Jeffrey R. Schmitt. Schmitt practices in commercial litigation including banking, real estate, construction, and other matters for individuals and businesses.