Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that the firm's Peoria Office has been recognized as the Peoria County Bar Association 2021 Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year. Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall received the award on behalf of the firm in a October 25, 2021 ceremony hosted by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Pro Bono Committee of the Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI).

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that attorney Ambrose McCall has been named Peoria County Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the Peoria County Bar Association. McCall was honored—along with other attorneys receiving recognition for their commitment to pro bono—at a Celebrate Pro Bono reception hosted by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Pro Bono Committee on October 23, 2017. Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas L. Kilbride served as keynote speaker. The event was co-sponsored by The Legal Services Division of Caterpillar, Inc., the Peoria County Bar Association, Prairie State Legal Services, Inc., Public Interest Law Initiative, and the Tazewell County Bar Association.

Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall recently joined the Greg and Dan Show on 1470 WMBD to discuss the significance of an antitrust case brought by Epic Games against Google. A unanimous jury recently found that Google’s Google Play app store and billing service are an illegal monopoly.

Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall recently joined the Greg and Dan Show to discuss the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit filed by voting machine vendor Dominion Voting against Fox News, and how the Dominion Voting vs. Fox News case could impact the media industry as a whole. In the show, McCall noted that the high-profile case has and will continue to influence news organizations to be more cautious about checking facts and claims made on air.

Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall recently joined the Greg and Dan Show to discuss four upcoming cases before the U.S. Supreme Court which allege certain social media and technology platforms, including Google and Twitter, violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act. The Supreme Court must decide whether the platforms qualify for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

Hinshaw labor and employment attorneys from the Midwest, East Coast, and West Coast will address developments in the ever-changing landscape of employment law claims, including significant court decisions, changes to state and federal law affecting their region as well as other important trends, legislation and decisions of which every employer should be aware.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's 24th Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

Hinshaw's Ambrose McCall will present a webinar titled "Legal Responsibilities when Monitoring Your Employees On and Off the Clock," on September 17, 2020. The presentation is designed for human resources managers, benefits and payroll professionals, controllers, accountants, and attorneys.

Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall will present a Lorman Seminars webinar titled "Smoking Discrimination in the Workplace: On and Off the Clock," on April 11, 2018 from 1:00 – 2:30 PM Eastern. In his presentation, McCall will focus on situations where employees may claim discrimination or violations of their privacy rights related to their lifestyle choices when disciplined or terminated for smoking tobacco, as well as the current status of smoking technologies. He will also review current trends regarding employer incentives for employees to reduce or quit smoking.

Public employers have interests that differ from private employers. While both types of employers seek to increase their revenues, public employers have additional concerns that can take priority over short-term budgetary interests, such as maintaining public safety. Those interests can conflict with their employees' First Amendment rights to communicate on matters of public concern. In these circumstances, the law must balance the interests of public sector employees to speak on matters of public concern and the interests of public employers in applying proper workplace rules that promote and maintain cohesion, order, and teamwork—especially in the area of law enforcement.

On June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Van Buren v. U.S. addressing a long-standing circuit split on employee computer access limits under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). For many years the federal courts struggled with and disagreed over how to interpret the CFAA provisions that impose criminal and civil liability on a person who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2). The phrase "exceeds authorized access" is defined by the CFAA as follows: "To access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6). Unlike the typical employment scenario, the Van Buren case involved a police officer who used his access to a law enforcement database to search a license plate in exchange for $5,000.00 that was offered to him as part of a planned FBI investigation. The police officer was charged with a felony violation of the CFAA based on the allegation that his license plate search violated the "exceeds authorized access" provision of the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2). Specifically, the government's case against the police officer was that he used his authorized access to the license plate database for "an improper purpose" that included "any personal use." Van Buren, p. 4, citing App. 17. After the police officer was convicted by a jury, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed by holding that the police officer had violated the CFAA by his action in accessing the law enforcement database for an "inappropriate reason." Van Buren v. U.S., 940 F.3d 1192, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019).

It is often a challenge for employers to decide on who will deliver the bad news to an employee that their employment has ended. That decision may depend on who can connect with an employee and cause the least amount of personal and workplace turmoil.

Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provisions do not bar employees from filing lawsuits in civil court against their employers for alleged violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), when no other injury is alleged. McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511. 

The Illinois state legislature passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act in 2008. The law, known as BIPA, covers and regulates private employer use of biometric identifiers and biometric information of Illinois employees. Local and state governmental employers are specifically exempted.

Supreme Court Allows Employers to Obtain Review of EEOC's Conciliation Efforts

Welcome to the Labor & Employment Chronicle, our quarterly newsletter that reviews the top stories from Hinshaw's Employment Law Observer blog.

Every employer has to contend with employee turnover, including key personnel leaving for a competitor. The loss or compromise of confidential data is a significant risk in such a scenario. One way for an employer to protect itself is by resorting to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a civil remedy that allows a private party to seek compensation for losses caused by the unauthorized access to data on a protected computer by a current or former employee.

NLRB Expands Definition of "Protected Activity"