More employers continue to be added to the ever-expanding list of thousands of Illinois companies facing class actions over employee fingerprint and other biometric ID scans under Illinois' stringent biometrics privacy law.
In the wake of recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions cementing a sweeping, broad reach for the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), class action complaints under the law against employers have not slowed, and may be showing signs of increasing, as new attorneys appear to have added their names to the roster of firms and lawyers seeking to cash in on the potential big-money claims.
Illinois employers of various sizes are the top targets, as the complaints continue to primarily press claims accusing business of improperly requiring workers to scan their fingerprints or other so-called biometric identifiers without their consent. Businesses have noted to no avail that the identity scans have been common practice in the U.S. for many years, when punching the clock at work or when accessing sensitive areas in workplaces, like cash rooms and drug lockers.
But under the BIPA law, plaintiffs claim the scans are not allowed if employers did not first secure written consent from workers before requiring the fingerprint scans or did not provide them with notices detailing how the scanned data would be managed. And, they claim, employers should potentially be made to pay big money for the technical violations of the statute.
Some of the recent class actions that continue to pour into Cook County court and other courts throughout Illinois include these, filed Feb. 28 - March 3 by attorneys Daniel Schlade and James Dore of Justicia Laboral, of Chicago:
Esmerelda Silva v Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, LLC, filed 2/28. Tony’s Fresh Market is a family owned grocery chain operating multiple locations throughout the Chicagoland area.
Laura Romero v New WinCup Holdings, filed 3/2. New WinCup Holdings manufactures disposable polystyrene cups, bowls, containers, straws and lids.
Juan Carlos Ortiz Robles v Third Synthesis Inc. d/b/a, Chicago Sweet Connection, filed 2/28. Chicago Sweet Connection is a Chicago bakery, offering an assortment of Greek and American baked goods.
Leonardo Sierra v Arlington Plating Aquisition Company, LLC, filed 3/2. Based in Palatine, Arlington Plating provides plating and polishing services that specializes in electroless plating on metal and plastic components to provide decorative and functional coatings on predominately light metals.
Andrea Lara Campos v Authentic Brands of Chicago, LLC. filed 3/2. Chicago based, Authentic Brands is a food maker providing ready-made and private label items including Italian beef, \sausage, meatballs, corned beef, hot dogs, giardiniera, and dressings and sauces to restaurants throughout Chicago.
Neofito Castañeda v Bridgford Food Processing Corp., filed 3/2. Chicago based Bridgford Food Processing manufactures frozen bread dough, biscuits, cinnamon roll doughs, sandwiches, beef jerky, snack, and various deli foods. They are known for pioneering the process of making frozen bread dough in 1962.
Antonio Lopez Arroyo v MH Lodging, filed 3/2. MH Lodging operates the Hotel Monaco in Chicago.
Rubi Salgado Mendez v Food for Thought, filed 3/2. Food for Thought is a Lincolnshire based catering company.
Claudio Rosales Cielo v Element Food Solutions, LLC, filed 3/3. Based in Hodgkins, Element Food Solutions is a dry blend products and packaging supplier to the food industry that boasts diversified, healthy alternative ingredients.
Class actions filed March 3 by Max P. Barack of the Haskell Garfinkel Group, of Chicago include:
Savannah White v Quality Huts Midwest, d/b/a Pizza Hut filed 3/2. Quality Huts Midwest is an Evergreen Park-based Pizza Hut franchisee.
Such lawsuits are only expected to mount by the dozens and hundreds in coming weeks and months, as trial lawyers are attracted by the prospect of relatively easy, and large, paydays.
payouts have already amounted to huge hits to employers accused of BIPA violations. With the potential to extract damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, this could mean big dollars. The Illinois Supreme Court confirmed that risk in two recent rulings, which together would allow plaintiffs to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per fingerprint or other biometric scan - not per employee - dating back as much as five years.
Fast food chain White Castle, for instance, estimated in court the damages under the Illinois Supreme Court's holdings concerning the law could rise to as much as $17 billion, which would potentially destroy the business entirely.
The Illinois Supreme Court's majority asserted it did not believe courts would allow damage awards that would destroy entire businesses.
But businesses have warned that, without relief from courts or changes to the law from legislators, the Illinois Supreme Court's rulings will result in economic devastation from "astronomical damages" that put entire companies out of business, over technical violations of the law that resulted in no concrete harm to workers.