{"id":2078,"date":"2025-03-13T12:56:37","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T16:56:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2078"},"modified":"2025-03-13T12:56:38","modified_gmt":"2025-03-13T16:56:38","slug":"federal-court-holds-illinois-genetic-privacy-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-transportation-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/03\/13\/federal-court-holds-illinois-genetic-privacy-claim-not-preempted-by-federal-transportation-regulations\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Holds Illinois Genetic Privacy Claim Not Preempted By Federal Transportation Regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Justin Donoho, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Tyler Zmick<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>In Short v. MV Transportation, Inc., No. 24-CV-3019 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2025), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendant\u2019s bid to dismiss a\u00a0claim brought under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (\u201cGIPA\u201d).\u00a0 In his ruling<\/a><\/u>, Judge Shah acknowledged that U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require companies in the transportation industry (including defendant) to ensure their drivers satisfy certain physical qualification criteria.\u00a0 The Court nonetheless rejected defendant\u2019s argument that the regulations preempt the GIPA because they do not specifically require employers to ask applicants about their family medical histories (which the GIPA prohibits).\u00a0 In other words, the Court denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss because the GIPA does not make it \u201cphysically impossible\u201d to comply with federal regulations.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Plaintiff Kevin Short alleged that he applied for a position as a driver for Defendant MV Transportation, Inc., a company that provides paratransit services.  As part of the application process, Plaintiff was required to complete a physical examination during which he was asked about his family medical history, including whether his family members had a history of high blood pressure, heart disease, or diabetes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff subsequently sued MV Transportation under the GIPA, alleging that the company violated Section 25(c)(1) of the statute by \u201csolicit[ing], request[ing], [or] requir[ing] . . . genetic information of a person or a family member of the person . . . as a condition of employment [or] preemployment application.\u201d  410 ILCS 513\/25(c)(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MV Transportation moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the Department of Transportation’s (\u201cDOT\u201d) regulations preempted Plaintiff\u2019s GIPA claim.  Specifically, MV Transportation argued that Plaintiff\u2019s claim was barred under a \u201cconflict preemption\u201d theory because allowing the claim to proceed would force MV Transportation to choose between complying with the GIPA or complying with federal requirements to \u201cconduct[ ] thorough physical examinations of its drivers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MV Transportation pointed to the Motor Carrier Safety Act for support, under which the DOT regulates commercial motor vehicle safety by promulgating \u201cminimum safety standards\u201d to ensure that \u201cthe physical condition of operators . . . is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely\u201d \u2013 including by requiring drivers to satisfy 13 \u201cphysical qualification criteria.\u201d  49 U.S.C. \u00a7 31136(a)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In denying MV Transportation\u2019s motion, the Court noted that conflict preemption applies only where \u201ccompliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility\u201d or where the state law \u201cstands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 6-7 (citations omitted); see also id.<\/em> at 6 (noting that \u201c\u2018[i]nvoking some brooding federal interest\u2019 is insufficient to establish preemption; instead, MV Transportation must identify \u2018a constitutional text or a federal statute\u2019 that displaces or conflicts with the state law\u201d) (quoting Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren<\/em>, 587 U.S. 761, 767 (2019)).  The Court further observed that MV Transportation had the burden of overcoming the \u201cpresumption against preemption.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its ruling, the Court concluded that it is not physically impossible for MV Transportation to simultaneously comply with the GIPA and DOT regulations relative to Plaintiff\u2019s pre-employment health screening because the DOT regulations do not specifically require any inquiry into a driver\u2019s family medical history.  MV Transportation asserted that DOT regulations nonetheless \u201ccontemplate[] that medical examiners may discuss\u201d a person\u2019s family medical history during a physical exam.  The Court was not persuaded, however, stating that such a scenario is \u201cnot enough to suggest that compliance with GIPA and the federal regulations is \u2018physically impossible.\u2019\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 9 (\u201cThe mere possibility that a medical examiner asks for information protected by GIPA while performing an examination does not demonstrate impossibility to comply with both federal and state law.\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court similarly held that the GIPA is not an obstacle to the execution of Congress\u2019s purposes, as reflected in the Motor Carrier Safety Act and DOT regulations.  As support for this conclusion, the Court observed that the relevant DOL regulations and the GIPA serve different purposes \u2013 the regulations are meant to promote the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles, while the GIPA focuses on health information privacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications Of The Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Short v. MV Transportation<\/em> is one of several recent decisions in which courts denied bids to dismiss GIPA claims at the pleading stage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this litigation landscape and the statute\u2019s strict penalty provision \u2013 under which statutory damages can quickly become significant ($2,500 per negligent violation and $15,000 per intentional or reckless violation, see<\/em> 410 ILCS 513\/40(a)(1)-(2)) \u2013 employers should ensure they comply with the statute regarding any health screenings they ask applicants or employees to complete (including by explicitly advising applicants and employees not<\/em><\/strong> to disclose their family medical histories during the screenings).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Justin Donoho, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Tyler Zmick Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0In Short v. MV Transportation, Inc., No. 24-CV-3019 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2025), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendant\u2019s bid to dismiss a\u00a0claim brought under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (\u201cGIPA\u201d).\u00a0 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Federal Court Holds Illinois Genetic Privacy Claim Not Preempted By Federal Transportation Regulations”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":686,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[122,7,12],"class_list":["post-2078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":122,"user_id":686,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jrdonoho","display_name":"Justin Donoho","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/02\/donohojustin-1-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Donoho","first_name":"Justin","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/justindonoho.html","description":"Read Justin's Bio<\/a>"},{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":12,"user_id":578,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tzzmick","display_name":"Tyler Z. Zmick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/zmicktyler-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Zmick","first_name":"Tyler Z.","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Tyler's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2078","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\/686"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2078"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}