Consistent with several federal decisions, an Illinois Court of Appeals panel recently determined that a union employee’s claims against his employer under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Information Act (“BIPA”) were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). In Walton v. Roosevelt University, 2022 IL App (1st) 210011 (1st Dist. 2022), a bargaining unit employee of the University brought a class action claiming the University violated various provisions of BIPA by using a biometric time-clock system to scan his fingerprints without first obtaining his informed written consent and by disclosing his biometric information to a third-party payroll service provider without his consent.
The Illinois Appellate panel was asked to determine whether the claims asserted by the union employee were “preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, which governs most disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements.” Walton v. Roosevelt University, 2022 IL App (1st) 210011 ¶8. Answering in the affirmative, the panel reasoned that since the timekeeping procedures were covered by the subject collective bargaining agreement, any dispute regarding the employer’s use of the biometric timeclock or the union’s consent to biometric data collection required the interpretation or administration of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the panel held that the LMRA prevents the union employee from usurping the bargained-for dispute resolution requirements in the collective bargaining agreement by first suing the University directly in court.
Relying on a series of similar federal court decisions interpreting BIPA preemption under the LMRA, including the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Fernandez v. Kerry, Inc., 14 F.4th 644, 646-47 (7th Cir. 2021), the panel’s decision reinforces the strategy of dismissing BIPA claims brought by union employees in favor of the collective bargaining agreements’ alternative dispute and grievance procedures. This is a welcome reprieve for employers whose defenses at the pleading stage have been whittled down by recent decisions.
Walton further solidifies key takeaways for Illinois employers with union employees:
Thompson Coburn’s employment attorneys are available to assist you and provide more information regarding the impact of this case and these issues.
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an ‘engagement letter’).
By clicking the ACCEPT button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you. Please click the ACCEPT button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.