On September 21, 2020, the California Court of Appeal (Dist) authorized it. 1, Div. 4) in a notice published 2-1 in Doe v. Google Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Dist. 1, Div. 4), three current and former Google employees, their challenge to Google`s privacy agreement as illegally excessive and anti-competitive according to the California Private Attorneys General Act („PAGA“) (Lab). Code 2698 and following) to assert its rights. In doing so, the Court of Appeal set aside the Tribunal`s order to order Google`s decount on the basis of the pre-emption force of the National Labor Relations Act („NLRA“) (29 U.S.C No. 151 and below) under San Diego Bldg Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244-245 (1959).
The Tribunal found that, although the applicants` claims refer to conduct under the NRL, they fall within the local interest of Garmon`s right of pre-emption and may therefore continue to be so. It remains to be seen whether the complainants will be able to meet their challenges regarding Google`s substantive privacy policy. Doe, however, serves as a warning to employers to carefully put in place strong confidentiality agreements, particularly in the technology sector, in anticipation of the potential challenges workers may face. Google denied the entire complaint and the court backed the demurr with the applicants` privacy claims and agreed that the LNRA had pre-empted such claims. The complaint states that the agreements are contrary to state laws that provide that employers cannot prevent workers from discussing their wages or passing information to government authorities. In analysing federal and state issues to the state, the Court of Appeal found that several of the statutes that supported the applicants` ADG claims did not fit into the principles of „mutual benefit“ that underpin the NRL, but protected the applicant`s activities as individuals. The court cited several examples, including the prohibition of the Labour Code 242, which prevents employees from disclosing the level of their wages (a law enacted to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex) and the labour code 232.5, which prohibits an employee from disclosing information about the employer`s working conditions (the California policy prohibiting restrictions on speech on conditions of employment). The court also found that the NRL did not protect much of the activities prohibited by the statutes that supported the applicants` paga claims, and found that the NNRA did not prohibit employees from seeking new employment and competing with Google, as the complainants claimed that Google`s privacy rules had done.