As the COVID-19 threat lingers and businesses look for ways to protect their employees, there has been a lot of talk about contact tracing in the workplace. As the name suggests, contact tracing is a process of determining who an infected individual has had contact with and possibly exposed to a disease. This is not a new process and in the past has been done by interviewing people to create lists of exposed individuals who could be warned or isolated. With modern technology, there are a lot more options, some of which employers are considering using in the workplace.
The primary high tech options for contact tracing are smart phone apps and wearable technology although video monitoring is also a possibility combined with facial recognition technology and remote temperature checks. Tracking devices and smartphones may utilize GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or RFID technology. Most approaches utilize technology to keep a record of the instances of close proximity (e.g. within six feet) between employees over a certain period of time, e.g. during a shift. This data is stored for some period of time and can be searched for contacts if an employee contracts COVID-19. The data can be collected anonymously by using assigned identification numbers for employees. Most systems rely on employees self reporting a diagnosis so their contacts can be mapped during the period when they may have exposed other employees.
Each specific method of contact tracing raises different issues depending on how it is used in the workplace. Of initial concern are privacy torts that center on the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace and elsewhere. While monitoring in work areas is probably not an issue, monitoring or tracking restrooms, visits to medical personnel and off duty time could raise issues. Communication with employees regarding the employer’s program is critical in this area.
The ADA is probably not an issue given that the EEOC has declared COVID-19 a direct threat and authorized testing in the workplace. However, consideration should be given to what groups of employees are to be monitored to avoid discrimination claims. For example, monitoring only those in certain higher risk groups, e.g. over 60 years old, could be problematic.
Perhaps the biggest concern are the wide variety of state laws that may be implicated by contact tracing. For example, California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulates personal information, including biometric data such as: “physiological, biological or behavioral characteristics, including … DNA[,] that can be used … to establish individual identity,” including “imagery of the iris, retina, fingerprint, face, hand, palm, vein patterns, and voice recordings, from which an identifier template, such as a faceprint, a minutiae template, or a voiceprint, can be extracted, and keystroke patterns or rhythms, gait patterns or rhythms, and sleep, health, or exercise data that contain identifying information.” Obviously, this could be implicated depending on the tracking method used. Although the CCPA contains an exemption for employee information, employers still must provide California residents with a notice of the personal information collected along with the business and commercial purposes for such collection. In this context, that means that employers that deploy contact tracing apps in California will be required to provide disclosures to California employees. On another note, both California and Illinois laws require reimbursement for any utilization of employees’ mobile phones so this would be an issue if a smartphone app approach is used.
Additionally, contact tracing apps could be collecting personal information that is potentially subject to state data breach notification laws. Although these laws differ between jurisdictions, they generally require entities to notify individuals if there is unauthorized acquisition of personal information, which is usually defined as an individual’s first name or first initial and last name combined with a specified data element. Some of these laws cover medical information and/or biometric information. Similarly, a number of states have adopted specific biometric privacy laws that, depending on what is collected by the contact-tracing app, could be implicated. Finally, several state laws, e.g. California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Virginia, prohibit the use of electronic tracking devices to determine the location or movement of a person without consent.
The takeaway is that tracking technologies can be utilized but there are a lot of issues to consider depending on the specific approach, including for example:
- What method will be used, e.g. app, wearable, other;
- What specific data will be collected;
- Who will be monitored;
- How will data be stored, protected, who will have access;
- How long will data be maintained;
- What information will be provided to employees; what training;
- Is participation mandatory or voluntary;
- What will be done to address employee failure/refusal to comply with tracking;
- Will data be shared outside the company, e.g. with health agencies;
- What state laws apply in jurisdictions where tracking will occur.
If you are considering the use of contact tracing in the workplace, contact any member of our Labor & Employment Group, or the KMK Law Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response Team for further assistance.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2024 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing clients in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims involving ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Labor
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Workplace Accommodations
- NLRB
- FMLA
- Medical Marijuana
- Employment Litigation
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Religion Discrimination
- Arbitration
- Workplace Violence
- Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- IRS
- Whistleblower
- Litigation
- Disability Discrimination
- Employer Policies
- Social Media
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Retirement
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Unions
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- 401(k)
- Disability
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Telephone Game
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update January 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment Law Issues to Watch in 2024
- Department of Labor Announces New Independent Contractor Rule to Go into Effect March 11, 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Employment Law Naughty & Nice List
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reefer Madness
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Office Romance Episode
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: New Laws Protecting Pregnant and Nursing Workers