7th Circ. Herron v. Gold Common Baking BIPA Litigation Paused

A federal court just lately paused a litigation introduced under Illinois’s Biometric Information and facts Privacy Act (“BIPA”), pending the outcome of numerous other cases which could be dispositive.  Herron v. Gold Common Baking, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69336 (N.D. Ill.).  Browse on for a recap of difficulties on the horizon for this usually litigated details privacy statute.

Initial, some background.  Plaintiff filed a criticism asserting a declare underneath BIPA against her employer on November 13, 2020.  As you will remember, BIPA was enacted in 2008 and guards the own biometric facts of Illinois citizens.  The statute is enforced via a non-public correct of motion that is obtainable to “[a]ny human being aggrieved by a violation.”  740 ILCS 14/20.  To generalize, Part 15 of the statute areas limits on the assortment, retention, and disclosure of biometric info.  Section 15(b) of BIPA requires “private entities trying to get to gather biometric info to first (1) inform the particular person whose biometrics are being gathered, in crafting, that the facts is becoming gathered or stored (2) inform the individual in writing of the “specific purpose and length of term” for which the biometrics are getting gathered, stored, and utilised and (3) receive a written launch from the particular person.”

In this situation, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to comply with (1) and (2) and that every single fingerprint scan collected by Defendant was a different violation of BIPA.  The Defendant sought a keep of the litigation, pending the resolution of BIPA conditions right before the Illinois Supreme Courtroom, the Illinois Appellate Court docket, and the Seventh Circuit Courtroom of Appeals.

As a recap, there are many BIPA litigations pending which may perhaps have a sizeable impression for cases brought below this statute heading ahead.  These conditions contain:

  • McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, No. 126511 (Ill.): Pending right before the Illinois Supreme Courtroom, will deal with question of no matter if BIPA statements brought by workers towards their companies are preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”), 820 ILCS 305/1, et seq.

  • Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., No. 1-20-0562, and Marion v. Ring Container Techs., LLC, No. 3-20-0184: Two situations pending in advance of Illinois Appellate Courts that may well make your mind up whether BIPA promises are most likely matter to a one particular-, two-, or 5-calendar year statute of restrictions.

  • In Re: White Castle Procedure, Inc., No. 20-8029, Dkt. 9 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2020): A Seventh Circuit determination which will address regardless of whether a personal entity violates BIPA only when it initiallycollects or discloses an individual’s biometric facts devoid of creating the needed disclosures, or no matter whether a violation occurs each individual time the entity collects or discloses the data.

For uses of Herron, the court docket uncovered that a keep pending the the White Castle decision was suitable, for the reason that the consequence of that circumstance could be dispositive of the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims.  This was due to the fact, based mostly on the allegations in the Grievance, Plaintiff 1st swiped her fingerprint in Oct 2017, and she filed her complaint in November 2020.  As these types of, if the Seventh Circuit finds that a BIPA violation occurs only when an entity first collects an individual’s biometric knowledge, Plaintiff’s claims may well be time-barred (delivered, of course, only if Tims and Marion also discover that a 1 or two-yr statute of constraints applies to BIPA claims).

With judicial overall economy in head, the Herron court resolved to continue to be the situation, deciding upon to see if any of the issues in advance of it would be answered by TimsMarion, or White Castle.  CPW will be trying to keep an eye on all three, and this situation as well, to continue to keep you educated.  Remain tuned.


© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
National Legislation Overview, Volume XI, Quantity 148