One of the country’s largest operators of armored security trucks has become one of the latest targets of a class action under Illinois’ biometrics privacy law, as employees claim Brink’s Inc. has improperly required them to scan their fingerprints to verify their identities when they access the secured rear of the vehicle, where the cash and other valuables are stored.
On July 8, attorney J. Dominick Larry, of the Nick Larry Law firm, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Brink’s. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Troy Gawron. He is identified in the complaint as resident of Lake County and a Brink’s armored vehicle driver.
The plaintiffs seek to expand their lawsuit to include virtually everyone who drove a Brink’s truck in Illinois in the last five years.
J. Dominick Larry
| Keller Lenkner
The lawsuit centers on Brink’s use of a biometric security system to secure currency and other valuables being transported in their armored trucks. Under this system, Brink’s drivers or other employees are required to scan their fingerprints to unlock the trucks’ secured rear compartment.
According to the complaint, Brinks has deployed this system across its fleet of vehicles.
However, according to the lawsuit, Brinks did not first secure written authorization from its Illinois employees before requiring them to scan their fingerprints into Brinks’ security database. Nor did Brinks provide certain written notices concerning how those biometric scans would be stored, used and ultimately destroyed.
The plaintiffs assert these alleged actions amounted to violations of employees’ rights under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which allegedly requires employers to provide such notice and obtain consent before requiring workers to verify their identities using such fingerprint scanners.
BIPA has been on the books in Illinois since 2008. Supporters said the law was needed to ensure companies safeguarded Illinoisans’ unique biometric identifying information.
However, since about 2015, the law has underpinned a barrage of thousands of class action lawsuits. While some of the lawsuits have targeted big tech companies or others scanning the biometrics of customers and other tech users, the vast bulk of the lawsuits to date have taken aim at employers who require their workers to scan fingerprints or other biometric identifiers when punching the clock at work, or when accessing secured settings, such as drug closets, cash rooms, or, in this case, armored vehicles filled with money or other valuables.
The lawsuits in more recent months have led to some headline-grabbing settlements, as companies seek to bring the claims against them to a quick end. Facebook and Google, for instance, have agreed to pay $650 million and $100 million, respectively, to settle BIPA class actions against them.
But lawsuits against employers have also proven to be a lucrative business for a growing cadre of class action lawyers. Such settlements have ranged from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to as much as $50 million. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have typically collected a third of the settlement funds as attorney fees.
While relatively steep, the settlements have proven small sums compared to the potential liability defendant companies could face at trial. Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs are allowed to demand damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, depending on the alleged severity of the BIPA violations.
While no BIPA case has yet gone to trial, all employers, to date, have chosen to settle rather than run the risk of “crippling” damages that could run into the many millions, if not billions, of dollars under the BIPA law.
Facebook, for instance, had estimated its potential damages under the BIPA class action could amount to more than $5 billion, if the case had landed before a jury.
In the case against Brink’s, plaintiffs are also demanding damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, plus attorney fees.
The complaint does not yet state how many other current and former Brink’s employees could be added to the lawsuit, as part of the plaintiffs’ class. However, they said the number likely includes “scores” of people.