Kavitha Gupta's blog

http://www.accdocket.com/articles/gdpr-employer-interests-and-employee-privacy.cfm A company collects the data of its employees throughout the employees’ lifecycle — beginning with recruitment and concluding with resignation, termination, or retirement. The data is collected and processed at all stages. Many organizations are deploying new digital HR technologies to better manage and support the entire employment life cycle, including in the cloud to analyse data that can lead to HR improvements. The rapid adoption of new technologies in the workplace has been useful in detecting the loss of intellectual property or data breaches by an employee. What’s more, there are now predictive analytics and location data from smart devices that improve employee productivity. However, these technological developments are sometimes seen as intrusive and pervasive ways of cheaper monitoring and have raised concerns and challenges about employee privacy and data protection. Such te

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Protecting Employee Mobility and Negative Trade Secrets Reference:https://www.law.com/therecorder By  Maxwell V. Pritt  | UPDATEDMar 12, 2018 at 03:02 Boies Schiller Flexner When Judge William Alsup asked the lawyers in  Waymo v. Uber —the recent showdown over self-driving car technology—if engineers really had to get lobotomies before going to their next job, he wasn’t just asking if they had to “forget” what makes their former employers’ technology work. He was also asking if they had to forget what did  not  work for their former employers. Unfortunately for engineers—and their employers and the competitors that want to hire them—there is no simple answer under California and federal law. While the results of R&D that prove a certain process or approach does not work for a technology could be commercially valuable, the law is unclear on whether that information—“negative trade secrets” or “negative know-how” in legal jargon—can be a trade

https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive Recently, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh vs. University of Delhi & Ors., LPA 305/2017 & CM No.15732/2017, after having considered the facts of the case wherein the Appellant (delinquent employee) had challenged the inquiry report of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) mainly on the grounds that the reports only give a prima facie conclusion and not definite conclusion as mandated under the Act as well as the opportunity of cross examination of witnesses of the complainant and to lead defense evidence was denied to him by violating the principles of natural justice, has remanded the case back to the ICC for conducting afresh inquiry from the stage of cross examination of complainant’s witnesses whose examination-in-chief had already been tendered, in the following manner to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 11(3) of the Act as well as to comply with the principles of natur