18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 673 to dismiss this count as well. Consequently, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Jacobs, et al. v. Hanwha Techwin America, Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139668 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant, a security camera technology company, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by collecting biometric data though facial recognition technology in the security cameras to track, identify, and prosecute shoplifters. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the motion. Defendant manufactured the security cameras and sold them to T.J. Maxx, which placed the security cameras at the entrance of its stores. Plaintiff asserted that these cameras were collecting and disseminating biometric information from customers who entered and exited the store. Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to allege any facts that Defendant installed the cameras, operated the cameras, or was in any way related to T.J. Maxx’s security system. Defendant further argued that it was not in the security business, and that it had no interest in "prosecuting shoplifters" at T.J. Maxx. Id . at *3. Further, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant operated any systems or servers to store any information captured by the cameras. The Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to sufficient plead that Defendant collected any biometric data or stored it. The Court also ruled that Plaintiff failed to offer any factual allegations that plausibly established that Defendant exercised control over Plaintiff’s data or otherwise held or stored Plaintiff’s data anywhere. The Court held that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead factual matter to allow the Court to infer that Defendant was ever "in possession" of any biometric data. Id . at *7. Finally, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff did not present any legitimate reason to suspect that Defendant disclosed his biometric data or that of the putative class members. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Jones, et al. v. IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, Case No. 19-CV-2510 (N.D. Ill. April 27, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant’s use of fingerprint scanners violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC , 2020 IL App (1st) 192398 (2020). The Court granted in part the motion. The Court explained that the decision in McDonald will likely be dispositive of the determination in Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was based on whether Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”). The Court reasoned that the IWCA question would be pivotal to a number of cases and if the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the IWCA does preempt the claims, Defendant would avoid substantial prejudice if a stay was granted. The Court further opined that the stay would not unduly prejudice Plaintiff because he no longer worked for Defendant and therefore there was no risk of ongoing harm. Defendant also requested that the matter be stayed pending two Illinois Appellate Court cases and an interlocutory Seventh Circuit appeal. The Court denied the motion to stay pending the resolutions of those matters. It opined that a stay was not meant to be granted in perpetuity, and in any event, those cases might result in rulings during the stay pending the outcome in McDonald . For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to stay in part. King, et al. v. PeopleNet Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20769 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2021). Plaintiff, an employee, filed a state court class action alleging that Defendant’s failure to provide information regarding the use, storage, and retention of biometric information captured with its face scanners violated § 15(a), (b), and (c) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Defendant removed the action and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand two of the claims to the state court. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant was a supplier of biometric-enabled hardware such as fingerprint and facial recognition scanners, which captured employee data and transmitted it to Defendant’s cloud-based time and attendance systems. Defendant sold the hardware to Paramount Staffing, where Plaintiff was employed, and Plaintiff was required to clock-in and clock-out of shifts using Defendant’s face scanner. During each scan, Defendant’s device collected biometric identifiers, converted them into an electronic format, and transmitted the information to Defendant’s system. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant did not inform Plaintiff of this or provide her written consent, did not provide any written disclosures, and failed to supply her with written disclosures regarding the retention and use of the biometric information. With regard to the motion to remand, the Court determined that a mere violation of Defendant’s duty to publish a retention policy was not enough to bring a § 15(a) claim. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege an injury-in-fact stemming from Defendant’s profiting off of her biometric data, and so her claim under § 15(c) of