IAPP CIPP-US Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 8

E-discovery is the process by which parties share, review, and collect electronically stored information (ESI) to use as evidence in a legal matter1.The rules for e-discovery mainly prevent a conflict between business practice and technological safeguards, because they establish the standards and procedures for preserving, collecting, reviewing, and producing ESI in a way that balances the needs of litigation with the realities of technology2.For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provide guidance on the scope, timing, format, and methods of e-discovery, as well as the sanctions for failing to comply with e-discovery obligations3.The rules also encourage cooperation and communication among parties and courts to resolve e-discovery issues efficiently and effectively4. By following the rules for e-discovery, parties can avoid disputes, delays, and costs that may arise from incompatible or inconsistent business and technological practices.

The other options are not the main purpose of the rules for e-discovery, although they may be related or affected by them.The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent the loss of information due to poor data retention practices, although they do impose a duty to preserve relevant ESI when litigation is reasonably anticipated5.The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent the practice of employees using personal devices for work, although they do require parties to identify and disclose the sources of ESI that may be subject to discovery, including personal devices6.The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent a breach of an organization's data retention program, although they do require parties to produce ESI in a reasonably usable form and to protect privileged or confidential information7.

The Civil Rights Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination Act, and Equal Pay Act are all federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, such as race, sex, disability, age, and pay1234These laws also afford certain classes of employees' privacy protection by limiting inquiries concerning their personal information that may reveal their protected status or be used for discriminatory purposes. For example:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries that express a preference, limitation, or specification based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, unless they are bona fide occupational qualifications.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about whether an applicant is pregnant or intends to become pregnant, unless they are related to the ability to perform the job.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about whether an applicant has a disability or the nature or severity of a disability, unless they are related to the ability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about an applicant's age, unless they are related to a bona fide occupational qualification or a lawful affirmative action plan.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about an applicant's salary history, unless they are made for a lawful purpose other than determining the applicant's pay.

Option A is incorrect because these laws do not require employers not to discriminate against certain classes when employees use personal information.Rather, they require employers not to discriminate against certain classes in any aspect of employment, such as hiring, firing, pay, promotion, training, benefits, etc1234The use of personal information by employees is not directly addressed by these laws, although it may be subject to other privacy laws or policies.

Option B is incorrect because these laws do not require that employers provide reasonable accommodations to certain classes of employees. Rather, only the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and workers with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, respectively, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer. The other laws do not have a similar requirement, although they may prohibit employers from denying equal opportunities to certain classes of employees.

Option C is correct because these laws afford certain classes of employees' privacy protection by limiting inquiries concerning their personal information that may reveal their protected status or be used for discriminatory purposes, as explained above.

Option D is incorrect because these laws do not permit employers to use or disclose personal information specifically about employees who are members of certain classes. Rather, these laws generally prohibit employers from using or disclosing personal information that is protected by these laws for any unlawful or discriminatory purpose, unless an exception applies. For example, employers may use or disclose such information for legitimate business reasons, such as complying with reporting requirements, administering benefits, or conducting investigations.

The U.S. Wiretap Act prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. One of these exceptions is the ordinary course of business exception, which allows an employer or service provider to intercept communications that are made in the ordinary course of its business, such as for quality control, training, or security purposes. This exception does not apply to communications that are not related to the business, such as personal calls or emails, or to communications that are intercepted for other reasons, such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. The scope and applicability of this exception may vary depending on the context, the consent of the parties, and the state law. The other options are not valid exceptions under the Wiretap Act.Reference:1,2,3,4

Larry has a misconception about the applicability of federal law to private-sector employee rights. He believes that the U.S. Constitution protects American workers from various forms of discrimination, harassment, and invasion of privacy by their employers. However, the U.S.Constitution only applies to government actions, not private actions, unless there is a specific federal statute that extends constitutional protections to the private sector1.For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by private employers2.The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 regulates the interception and disclosure of electronic communications by private parties3.The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 sets the rules for commercial email and gives recipients the right to opt out of receiving unwanted messages4. These are examples of federal laws that apply to private-sector employees, but they do not cover all the situations that Larry faces at SunriseLynx. For instance, there is no federal law that protects private-sector employees from political discrimination or from having their personal mail opened by their employers.Larry may have to rely on state laws or common law torts to seek redress for these violations of his rights.Reference:1:Private Sector vs. Public Sector Employee Rights2: [Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia]3: [Electronic Communications Privacy Act - Wikipedia]4:CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 141-142

Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people based on certain characteristics, such as race, gender, age, religion, or political affiliation. Discrimination can occur in various contexts, such as employment, education, housing, or public accommodations. Discrimination can violate federal, state, or local laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected categories. In the scenario, Evan is susceptible to a lawsuit based on discrimination because he uses social media to favor employees who share his political views and deny promotions to those who do not. This could constitute political discrimination, which is prohibited by some state and local laws, such as the District of Columbia Human Rights Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Additionally, Evan's use of social media could reveal other protected characteristics of his employees, such as their race, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation, and expose him to claims of discrimination based on those grounds as well. For example, if Evan posts derogatory comments about a certain race or religion, and then denies a promotion to an employee of that race or religion, that employee could sue Evan for discrimination under federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Civil Rights Act of 1991.Reference:

Political Discrimination in the Workplace | Nolo

Social Media and Employment Law Summary of Key Cases and Legal Issues

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: State Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 4.1: State Anti-Discrimination Laws.

The Stored Communications Act (SCA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of electronic communications that are stored by third-party service providers, such as email providers, cloud storage providers, or social media platforms. The SCA prohibits unauthorized access to or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of the user or the service provider . The SCA also provides exceptions for certain types of access or disclosure, such as those made for law enforcement purposes, for the protection of the service provider's rights or property, or for the consent of the subscriber or customer .

One of the exceptions to the SCA is where the service provider gives consent to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. This means that if a third-party service provider agrees to cooperate with an investigation or a request for information, the access or disclosure is lawful under the SCA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the terms of service of the provider. For example, if a service provider has a policy that allows it to disclose user information to third parties for legitimate purposes, the provider has impliedly consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. However, if a service provider has a policy that prohibits such disclosure, the provider has not consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications.

In the scenario, Evan's undercover investigation may have been authorized by the SCA if he obtained the consent of the third-party service provider that stored the electronic communications of the employee who was suspected of misconduct. For instance, if the employee used a company email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that allowed the service provider to disclose user information to the employer or to law enforcement, Evan may have been able to access or disclose the stored communications with the consent of the service provider. However, if the employee used a personal email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that protected user privacy and prohibited such disclosure, Evan may have violated the SCA by accessing or disclosing the stored communications without the consent of the service provider.

In the United States, there is no comprehensive federal law that regulates employee monitoring in the private sector. Instead, there are various federal and state laws that address specific aspects of monitoring, such as electronic communications, video surveillance, GPS tracking, and biometric data. Generally, these laws provide more protection for employees' privacy when they are using their own devices or personal accounts, or when they are outside of work hours or premises. However, when employees are using company-owned devices or accounts, or when they are performing work-related tasks, employers have broad authority to monitor their activities, as long as they have a legitimate business interest and do not violate any specific laws.Employers are also advised to inform employees of their monitoring practices and obtain their consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to avoid potential legal disputes or employee backlash123Reference: https://www.jibble.io/article/us-employee-monitoring

https://www.worktime.com/most-asked-questions-on-us-employee-monitoring-laws

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not have a comprehensive federal law that regulates the privacy of private-sector employees. Instead, the privacy protection of employees depends largely on state law, contract law, and tort law. State law may provide specific rights and remedies for employees regarding issues such as drug testing, background checks, electronic monitoring, social media access, and genetic information. Contract law may create obligations and expectations for employers and employees based on written or implied agreements, such as employment contracts, employee handbooks, or collective bargaining agreements. Tort law may allow employees to sue their employers for invasion of privacy, such as intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, or appropriation of name or likeness. The other options are less likely to provide privacy protection to private-sector employees in the United States. The FTC Act primarily regulates the privacy practices of businesses that collect and use consumer data, not employee data. The U.S. Constitution only protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not by private employers. The HHS only enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which applies to covered entities and business associates that handle protected health information, not to all private-sector employers.Reference:

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 6: Workplace Privacy

Privacy Rights of Employees Using Workplace Computers in the United States

Employee Privacy Laws