Compliance Stuff

The Washington Supreme Court just made it easier for plaintiffs to bring costly lawsuits against employers for violations of the state’s highly technical job posting requirements, making compliance more important than ever . The September 4 decision in  Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits  allows any “job applicant” to bring a claim for statutory damages against an employer that fails to disclose salary, wage, and benefits information in their job postings, regardless of whether they are a bona fide or good faith applicant. Yesterday’s decision invites a spike in “serial plaintiffs” who merely apply for jobs in aid of bringing large-scale class action lawsuits against employers that commit technical violations of the strict law. This Insight will review what happened in  Branson,  the impact of recent amendments to the law, and the three steps you can take to ensure you don’t end up as the next defendant in court. What Are the 2023 Job Posting Rules? As of...

An unsuccessful job applicant is suing Sirius XM Radio in federal court, claiming the company’s AI-powered hiring tool discriminated against him based on his race. Filed on August 4 in the Eastern District of Michigan, the plaintiff in  Harper v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC  alleges that the company’s AI system relied on historical hiring data that perpetuated past biases – resulting in his application being downgraded despite his qualifications. The lawsuit accuses Sirius XM of violating federal anti-discrimination statutes by the way it leverages AI tools in hiring, an allegation that we’re seeing more and more of lately. Here’s what you need to know about this case and how it fits into the larger puzzle of workplace AI litigation – plus 10 best practices you should follow as a result.   Case Summary:  Harper v. Sirius XM Radio Court:  U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (2:25-cv-12403) Filed:  August 4, 2025 Judge:  Hon. Terrence G. Berg...

California regulators unanimously approved a sweeping set of regulations on July 24 governing the use of automated decision-making technology (ADMT) and mandating risk assessments and cybersecurity audits for businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act . The regulations will impose significant new obligations on businesses regarding pre-use notices, opt-out rights, annual cybersecurity audits, and detailed risk assessments. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) must now submit the regulations to the Office of Administrative Law , which has 30 working days to review them for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act . Approval is expected. We’ll explain the new requirements for covered businesses and provide key action items to help you comply. Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT)   What is an ADMT? An ADMT is any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to replace or  substantially   replace human decision m...