"BIPA Win For Union Employers: Union Employees' BIPA Claims Are Preempted"

• Jurisdiction: Illinois,United States
• Law Firm: Seyfarth Shaw LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Privacy, Privacy Protection, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Ms Danielle M. Kays and Danny Riley
• Published date: 04 April 2023

Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 23, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the appellate court's decision in Walton v. Roosevelt University, ruling that the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") preempts the Illinois Biometric Privacy Information Act ("BIPA"). Following recent BIPA decisions that have ramped up the risk of liability for employers (see more information on Tims and White Castle), the decision in Walton helps to curb BIPA exposure for employers with broad management rights clauses in their collective bargaining agreements.

Background on Walton v. Roosevelt University

The case involves a dispute over the enrollment of employees' hand geometry scans in a timekeeping system used by Roosevelt University. In March 2019, the plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against Roosevelt, alleging that the University's collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the biometric information was in violation of several sections of BIPA Sections (a), (b), (d). In response, Roosevelt moved to dismiss, arguing that the BIPA claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 ("LMRA") (29 U.S.C. ' 185 (2018)). Because Walton was a member of a union during his employment, he had agreed to and was bound by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between his union and the University. Accordingly, the University argued that the manner by which employees clock in and out is covered by a broad management-rights clause and required grievance procedures under the CBA.

In support of its motion to dismiss, the University cited the Seventh Circuit's decision in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898, 903 (7th Cir. 2019), which held that federal labor law preempts BIPA claims when the claims require interpretation or administration of a CBA. However, in May 2020, the circuit court denied the University's motion to dismiss, finding Miller to be distinguishable from the facts at issue in this case. The court's opinion noted that a preemption argument is not relevant here because a BIPA claim "is not intertwined with or dependent substantially upon consideration of terms of [a] collective bargaining agreement" where a "person's rights under [BIPA] exist independently of both employment and any given CBA." Following the circuit court's opinion, it certified the following question for interlocutory appeal, which was answered in the affirmative by the appellate court:

"Does Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act...