The European Commission recently published a new Competition Policy Brief that classifies certain agreements related to labor markets as serious antitrust infringements.
It is essential for companies with workforces in the European Union to educate their human resources and recruiting departments on what constitutes an antitrust infringement. Further, no-poach agreements used in connection with M&A due diligence and negotiations, cooperation agreements, or joint venture situations should also be reviewed in detail to ensure they do not go beyond what is permitted.
With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) resulting in a rise in enforcement incidents, it is prudent for organizations operating in the health and life sciences industries across the United Kingdom, European Union (EU) and other European Economic Area (EEA) nations to assess their responsibilities regarding the gathering and handling of health data.
Major Points:
“Data concerning health” is a wide term; it doesn’t just apply to medical records. Policies and processing records should accurately capture all health data, including inference data.
Most EEA countries, and the United Kingdom, have national laws that supplement GDPR.
Consent is not the only legal basis for collecting, storing and using health data; there are other options available, but be aware that “insufficient legal basis for data processing” is a common type of GDPR violation.
If used, health data consents must be granular, specific and transparent, and they must break down all the purposes for which the data is being processed. Consent must be granted on an “opt-in” basis and not as a result of a pre-filled tick box.
Health data may be reused for genuine scientific research purposes provided the processing is compatible with the original use, appropriate safeguards are in place and any separate national law conditions are satisfied.
Privacy policies and transparency notices must be clear about the basis on which health data is processed.
Proceed carefully and consider reidentification risk when relying on anonymisation to process data; document any reidentification risk assessment and periodically review risk assessment in light of developments in publicly available data and evolving risk environment. Technical measures, such as evolving encryption standards, should be reviewed periodically.
In this video, McDermott Will & Emery partner Amy C. Pimentel explains the significance of health data transfers from the European Union to the United States in a post-Schrems II world. The recent Schrems II ruling invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, holding that the US legal regime on access to personal data does not contain adequate limitations and safeguards. Pimentel and McDermott’s Romain Perray recently also wrote for McDermott’s International News about this topic.
Employers in Spain are contending with the ongoing effects of the coronavirus pandemic, which continues to raise health and safety concerns. A resurgence of COVID-19 cases in July prompted some parts of the country to re-implement restrictions that had been lifted earlier.
“Spain was among the countries hit hardest by the coronavirus,” said Brian Cousin, head of the employment practice group at McDermott Will & Emery, in a recent article by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Employers and HR professionals in Spain should monitor news about national and local restrictions and regulations, as well as new guidance issued by local health authorities, the Spanish Health Ministry and the World Health Organization, according to Cousin. “Local and regional requirements can change on a daily basis,” he said.
The United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union and has entered into a transition period until December 31 2020, unless an extension of 1 or 2 years is agreed by July 1 2020 (the Brexit Long Stop Date).
During this transition period, the UK will continue to trade with the EU in much the same way as it did before its exit. Negotiations will take place throughout this year to determine the future permanent relationship between the UK and the EU.
The UK’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has repeatedly stated that the transition period will not be extended beyond the end of this year. This is an ambitious deadline to reach a comprehensive agreement with the EU and the possibility of a “no deal” Brexit remains an event for which companies should prepare.
Against this backdrop, this update summarises the current status of the UK’s relationship with the EU and sets out some of the key legal implications associated with a “no deal” scenario for certain areas—one of which being employment, which we examine here.
Current indications are that 2017 may be a fairly static year as regards to employment law.
Whilst it is anticipated the government will trigger Article 50 to start Brexit negotiations, these are likely to last for at least two years, and existing employment laws are unlikely to feel any ripple effect from leaving the European Union for some time.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister has asked for a review, expected to take around six months, on whether current employment laws are adequate to protect the rights of the growing numbers of atypical workers. It is unlikely though that any resulting changes will come into effect in 2017.
There are, however, a number of key developments that employers will definitely need to get to grips with, or at least prepare for, in 2017.
The European Commission recently determined that the Privacy Shield Framework is adequate to legitimize data transfers under EU law, providing a replacement for the Safe Harbor program. The Privacy Shield is designed to provide organizations on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States. Organizations that apply for Privacy Shield self-certification by September 30, 2016, will be granted a nine-month grace period to conform their contracts with third-party processors to the Privacy Shield’s new onward transfer requirements.
With the United Kingdom having voted to leave the European Union (Brexit) on 23 June 2016, the free flow of personal data between the United Kingdom and EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries is at risk. Should the United Kingdom also leave the EEA and thus become a “third country” for the purposes of data transfers, EU/EEA businesses that are currently retaining UK service providers or data centres to handle or store personal data, or are planning to do so, would have to carefully re-evaluate this decision.
Don’t panic. The United Kingdom will continue to be an EU Member State until procedures are completed for exiting the European Union, which is likely to be at least two years. Until a withdrawal agreement is reached, EU laws and treaties will still apply, including the right for EU nationals to work in the United Kingdom. This means that all current EU-derived employment laws should remain in place for at least two years.
European employers should exercise caution in the event of the dismissal of an obese employee. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) determined that obesity may qualify as severe disability if it significantly restricts participation in working life (ECJ, judgment of December 18, 2014 in Case C-354/13). This decision may be relevant not only for dismissals but also in hiring decisions. In order to avoid undue discrimination, an employment rejection letter should in no way whatsoever refer to the applicant’s weight. The plaintiff in the present case was an obese nursery teacher who filed a suit against his employer, the Danish community Billund, because of his dismissal. The employer argued that the dismissal was due to declining numbers of children being registered. The nursery teacher argued that the reason for his dismissal, after 15 years of employment, was his obesity, which constituted undue discrimination due to disability.
The ECJ clarified that European Union law does not contain a general prohibition with respect to obesity discrimination in employment. Nevertheless, obesity may qualify as severe disability if it significantly interferes with full and equal participation in working life. This can happen in cases of a particularly serious obesity of long duration, which causes physical, intellectual and mental impairment. According to this definition, the cause of the obesity is irrelevant. Now, following the decision of the ECJ, the Danish trial court has to decide if the nursery teacher’s obesity significantly interferes with full and equal participation in working life.
The decision of the ECJ may have significant impact on German employment law. Up until now, only conditions resulting from obesity (e.g., diabetes or chronic back pain) qualified as a severe disability. Following the decision of the ECJ, obesity itself may qualify as severe disability. It remains to be seen whether – and, if so, at which level –the ECJ will establish thresholds under which a dismissal or a rejection of an applicant is considered discriminatory due to obesity. Until then, the decision of the ECJ gives rise to considerable legal uncertainty.
Subscribe
