Stephan Zouras Llp
Professional Services; Law |
Law Firms
205 N. MICHIGAN AVE. STE. 3916
Recent News About Stephan Zouras Llp
View More
-
In a case with potentially far-reaching implications, the Asian-themed fast food chain says it never possessed nor authorized customer face scans at self-service ordering kiosks, meaning it can't be face the risk of a potentially huge payout under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act in this case
-
The lawsuit targets trucking companies Unlimited Carrier Inc., Trans Quality Inc. and ES Express Lines Inc.
-
Extended Care Consulting operates 16 skilled nursing centers in Chicago and its suburbs.
-
Seafood City Supermarkets, a subsidiary of SFC Foods Chicago Inc., is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law by requiring workers to scan their fingerprints, allegedly without notice and consent required by Illinois' biometrics privacy law
-
Trucking company Lazer Spot, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to pay overtime wages to its "yard jockeys", thereby violating federal and state wage laws.
-
Commercial printer JohnsByrne has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the company of allegedly wrongly requiring workers to scan their fingerprints when punching the clock.
-
The unanimous ruling said a HIPAA-specific exemption protects Illinois hospitals and health care equipment maker Becton Dickinson from a specific group of potentially catastrophic class action lawsuits under Illinois' biometrics privacy law
-
Smartlinx joins growing list of workplace tech vendors hit by class actions under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
-
A federal judge dismissed a class action vs AWS after determining plaintiffs need to do more than show AWS provided Rekognition to temp hiring app Wonolo, which used face scans to verify identities of job applicants
-
Des Plaines-based limo and party bus service M&M Transportation allegedly wrongly classified drivers as independent contractors under Illinois' wage and hour laws, new lawsuit says
-
The class action lawsuit was brought against Amazon under Illinois' biometrics privacy law, potentially putting Amazon on the hook for a big future payout
-
Patronscan tech scans ID cards to verify age and weed out potentially problematic patrons at bars and nightclubs. But lawsuit says Patronscan never obtained consent or provided notice to people in Illinois before scanning, allegedly violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law
-
The decision leaves in place a rare win for Illinois employers besieged by thousands of class actions under Illinois' biometrics law, with potentially millions or even billions of dollars at stake
-
Divided IL Supreme Court has ruled trial lawyers can demand employers pay potentially billions of dollars in damages covering every fingerprint scan, not just first one. Businesses who don't like it need to ask lawmakers to change the law, court says
-
The lawsuits assert health care workers at Advocate Aurora and hospitals associated with Loyola Medicine, including Loyola University Medical Center and Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, improperly required workers to scan fingerprints to access Pyxis drug dispensers
-
The decision turned back another effort by businesses to limit the reach and impact of the state's stringent biometrics privacy law, which has been used to target thousands of businesses with massive class actions, primarily over employee fingerprint scans when punching time clocks
-
The lawsuit is similar to others filed against the NFL, Warner Bros. and Buzzfeed, among others
-
The company provided scanning devices to help businesses like supermarket chain Jewel-Osco detect Covid symptoms in their workers at the height of the pandemic. The lawsuit says the scans violated Illinois' biometrics privacy law
-
The settlement ends a 4-year-long court fight over claims Osco pharmacists were improperly required to scan their fingerprints to prove their identity when accessing the pharmacy's computer system
-
The Illinois Supreme Court will hear arguments Sept. 22 that could put a brake on the onslaught of biometric privacy class actions by ruling whether a five-year or a one-year statute of limitations applies
