1/25/2024 0 Comments Fire in his fingertips episodeMatcor further argued that there was a difference between the “fingertip” scans that it took and the “fingerprint” scans covered by the BIPA, but it was unable to cite authority that showed any meaningful difference between the two. It opined that the BIPA also applied when timeclocks collected biometric information “based on” a fingerprint. The court was unconvinced with this argument. In its ruling, the court dismissed a series of defenses offered by the company, including that in order for the BIPA to apply, Matcor’s timeclocks needed to “collect” and store its employees’ fingerprints, rather than just transmit it to a third-party vendor. What did the trial court do in ruling upon those cross motions?Ĭhristian: So the court held that there was no dispute of material facts that Matcor’s timekeeping policies during the class-wide time period violated the BIPA. Both in essence saying there was no material issue of fact and liability was either established, if you believe the plaintiff – or there was no liability, if you believe the papers of the defendant. Then there was class-wide discovery, and, as I understand, the record dueling motions, or cross motions for summary judgment were filed, both by the plaintiff on behalf of the class and the defendant. Now, in this case the plaintiffs early on in the litigation filed a motion for class certification, which was granted. Nearly one year after the lawsuit had commenced, Matcor implemented BIPA-compliant policies, which included distributing a “Biometric Consent Form” outlining Matcor’s policies collecting, retaining, and destroying employee data. The plaintiff and class representative, William Thompson, subsequently brought a lawsuit in May of 2020, alleging the company’s timekeeping policy violated the Illinois BIPA. The scanners that collected this information were connected to Matcor’s timekeeping vendor – ADP – and the company sent finger scan data to ADP every time an employee scanned their fingertips. In September of 2019, Matcor Fabrication rolled out a new timekeeping policy, whereby it collected employees, fingerprints using “biometric scanners” for the purposes of determining when employees clocked in and out of work. Christian, can you give our listeners kind of an overview of why this case is significant and one they ought to take notice of?Ĭhristian: Absolutely, Jerry. Matcor Metal Fabrication (Illinois), Inc., something that we blogged about – a very important opinion. Jerry: Today we’re talking about BIPA ruling – the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, in a case called Thompson, et al. Thank you for being on the podcast today.Ĭhristian Palacios: Thanks, Jerry. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and I’m joined today by my colleague, Christian Palacios. Welcome to this week’s edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire. Jerry Maatman: Thank you for being here, our loyal blog listeners. The Illinois trial court’s decision in this case underscores the danger that companies face under state privacy “strict liability” statutes.Ĭheck out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, the Samsung Podcasts app, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, YouTube or our RSS feed. Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Christian Palacios with their discussion of what is believed to be the first summary judgment ruling for a certified class under the Illinois BIPA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |