{"id":1005,"date":"2023-12-14T15:01:04","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T19:01:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1005"},"modified":"2023-12-14T15:01:04","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T19:01:04","slug":"illinois-trial-court-grants-class-wide-summary-judgement-in-bipa-privacy-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/12\/14\/illinois-trial-court-grants-class-wide-summary-judgement-in-bipa-privacy-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Trial Court Grants Class-Wide Summary Judgement In BIPA Privacy Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Christian J. Palacios<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>In Thompson, et al., v. Matcor Metal Fabrication (Illinois), Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-00132 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 10th Dist. Dec. 8, 2023), a class of metal fabricators prevailed on a motion for summary judgment against <\/em>their<\/em> employer in what is <\/em>believed to be <\/em>the first summary<\/em> judgment <\/em>ruling for a certified class under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). An Illinois state court, determining there was no dispute of material fact, entered the pre-trial liability <\/em>judgment<\/em> against the defendant <\/em>employer<\/em> for collecting employee biometric data through its timekeeping system in violation of BIPA. <\/em><\/p>\n

This decision<\/a> highlights the danger that companies face under state privacy \u201cstrict liability\u201d statutes, and should serve as a warning for employers that lack robust policies governing the way they collect biometrics data from their employees. <\/em><\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

In September of 2019, Matcor Fabrication rolled out a new timekeeping policy whereby it collected its employees\u2019 fingerprints using \u201cbiometric scanners\u201d for the purposes of determining when employees clocked in and out of work. Id.<\/em> at 3. The scanners that collected this information were connected to Matcor\u2019s timekeeping vendor \u2013 ADP \u2013 and the company sent finger-scan data to ADP every time an employee scanner their fingertips. The named Plaintiff and class representative William Thompson subsequently brought the lawsuit in May of 2020, alleging the company\u2019s timekeeping policy violated the Illinois BIPA. Nearly one year after the lawsuit had commenced, Matcor implemented BIPA-compliant policies, which included distributing a \u201cBiometric Consent Form\u201d to employees that stated that the company\u2019s vendors \u201cmay collect, retain, and use biometric data for the purposes of verifying employee identity and recording time\u201d as well as describing Matcor\u2019s policies for retaining and destroying employee data. Id.<\/em> at 4. The Court previously had certified a class of Matcor employees who enrolled in the company\u2019s finger-scan timekeeping system between May 13, 2015 and June 16, 2021, prior to the policy update. After a lengthy discovery period, both parties filed motions for summary judgement.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Matcor\u2019s timekeeping policies during the class-wide time period violated the BIPA. In its ruling, the Court dismissed a series of defenses offered by the company, including that in order for the BIPA to apply, Matcor\u2019s timeclocks needed to \u201ccollect\u201d and store its employees\u2019 fingerprints, rather than just transmit it to a third-party vendor. The Court was unconvinced. It opined that the BIPA also applied when timeclocks collected biometric information \u201cbased on\u201d a fingerprint. Id<\/em>. at 7. Matcor further argued that there was a difference between the \u201cfingertip\u201d scans it took and the \u201cfingerprint\u201d scans covered by the BIPA, but it was unable to cite authority that showed a meaningful difference between the two. Finally, Matcor argued that the Court needed \u201cexpert testimony\u201d to assess the type of information the company\u2019s timeclocks collected. The Court rejected this contention. It observed that collecting employee\u2019s fingertip information clearly fell under the BIPA\u2019s definition of biometric information.<\/p>\n

Based on the facts, the Court determined that it was undisputed that Matcor began using biometric timeclocks to collect employee\u2019s fingerprints in 2019, and the company did not implement a BIPA-compliant policy until one year after the Plaintiff commenced his suit. The record also clearly showed that Matcor failed to obtain its employees consent before collecting their fingerprints, and only obtained BIPA releases 2 years after the suit was initiated. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgement and the lawsuit will now proceed to the damages stage.<\/p>\n

Implications <\/strong><\/p>\n

As this ruling emphasizes, employers can be held strictly liable for any period of time in which they collect their employees\u2019 biometric data without having a corresponding BIPA-compliant policy. State privacy statutes like the BIPA pose unique dangers for unwary employers who do not keep up-to-date with evolving legal requirements relating to the collection, retention, and use of biometric data. Although Illinois was one of the first early adopters of such stringent privacy laws, it will certainly not be the last, and companies should begin taking preventative measures to limit liability associated with such statutes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 In Thompson, et al., v. Matcor Metal Fabrication (Illinois), Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-00132 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 10th Dist. Dec. 8, 2023), a class of metal fabricators prevailed on a motion for summary judgment against their employer in what is believed … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Trial Court Grants Class-Wide Summary Judgement In BIPA Privacy Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1005"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}