A former employee of a US bank requests deletion of all their personnel records six months after resignation. The HR director notes the records include payroll tax documents and a pending discrimination charge filed with the EEOC. What principle should most directly govern the bank's decision on whether to delete the records?
- AThe data minimisation principle requires deletion of all former employee data immediately on separation regardless of context.
- BThe former employee holds an absolute right to deletion once the employment relationship ends, so the records must be erased.
- CContractual confidentiality clauses in the offer letter determine the retention period, so the records may be deleted once the clause lapses.
- DLegal retention and litigation hold obligations require keeping records needed for tax compliance and the active EEOC matter, overriding the deletion request. Correct
Why A is wrong: This is tempting because separation does reduce the need to hold data, but minimisation operates against retention obligations, not in spite of them, so blanket immediate deletion is wrong.
Why B is wrong: This appeals to a misread of consumer deletion rights, but US employee data is not subject to an absolute erasure right and statutory and litigation duties prevail, so it is wrong.
Why C is wrong: Confidentiality clauses look relevant because they survive separation, but they govern disclosure duties rather than retention periods, so they do not authorise deletion here.
Why D is correct: Payroll tax records carry statutory retention duties and the pending EEOC charge triggers a litigation hold, so the records must be preserved despite the request; this is the controlling principle.