Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About

Trending Topics

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni

    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations

    Industries

    View All

    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Entertainment
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Non Profit
    • Real Estate
    • Technology

    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. 7th Circuit rules fingerprinting BIPA claims may be preempted in some circumstances by Labor Management Relations ActAlerts

    Alert / Cybersecurity & Privacy Alert

    7th Circuit rules fingerprinting BIPA claims may be preempted in some circumstances by Labor Management Relations Act

    Sep 24, 2021

    Share

    By Laura Bacon, John Ruskusky, Richard Tilghman IV and Brian Alcala

    The court affirmed that employee claims for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by use of fingerprinting logins may be preempted under the Labor Management Relations Act for employees subject to union CBAs.

    What’s the Impact?

    • This ruling confirms that BIPA claims brought by employees subject to collective bargaining agreements are unlikely to succeed in court
    • Employers using biometric information in the workplace should consult with counsel to ensure compliance with BIPA and other regulations governing biometric data

    DOWNLOADS

    On Monday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s prior ruling that employee claims for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) may be preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) for those employees subject to a union collective bargaining agreement.

    In Fernandez, et al. v. Kerry, Inc., plaintiffs—members of Local 781 of the Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Airline, Automotive Parts, Service, Tire and Rental, Chemical and Petroleum, Ice, Paper, and Related Clerical and Production Employees Union—alleged, among other things, that defendant violated BIPA by requiring workers to use fingerprints to clock in and out without providing notice and obtaining consent. At the district court level, plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because resolution required the interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements between defendant and plaintiffs’ union, which triggered preemption under Section 301 of the LMRA.

    The 7th Circuit’s decision to affirm the lower court’s dismissal follows prior decisions involving BIPA claims brought by union workers against their employers. Of greatest significance to the court was its prior June 2019 decision in Miller v. Southwest Airlines where it held that disputes about the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement related to the use of fingerprint-scanning time clocks were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”). Plaintiffs attempted to distinguish Miller by arguing that the RLA is “more preemptive” than the LMRA, but the court disagreed and noted that its own decisions and those of the US Supreme Court have equated the two. The court also rejected as immaterial plaintiffs’ argument that the means of clocking in and out was a “permissive subject” of collective-bargaining under the LMRA as opposed to a “mandatory subject” under the RLA.

    Finally, as it did in Miller, the court recognized the significance of the management-rights clauses in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements because “whether [the] unions did consent to the collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant authority through a managements-rights clause, is a question for [decision under the agreement].” Although the court held that such a decision was reserved for an arbitrator per the LMRA, it denied plaintiffs’ request for arbitration as, again, this is a request that must be addressed between the union and the employer in the first instance.

    With Fernandez, the 7th Circuit makes clear that BIPA claims brought by employees subject to collective bargaining agreements are unlikely to have a path forward in court. Quoting Miller, the Seventh Circuit reminded: “States cannot bypass the mechanisms of [federal law] and authorize direct negotiation or litigation between workers and management.”

    CorporatePrivacyLabor & Employment

    Practices

    Cybersecurity & PrivacyBiometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)Labor & EmploymentClass Actions & Aggregate LitigationComplex Disputes

    Insights And Happenings

    • Press Release

      Nixon Peabody selects John Ruskusky as leader of the firm’s Complex Disputes practice

      Feb 7, 2022
    • Alert

      The Seventh Circuit certifies question regarding accrual of BIPA claims to Illinois Supreme Court

      Dec 22, 2021
    • Alert

      Illinois Appellate Court rules that BIPA claims accrue at each collection of biometric information

      Dec 17, 2021

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • © 2023 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Supplier Diversity Program
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL