Ernest Payton, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1:24-cv-00153

Plaintiffs are commercial truck drivers who allege Union Pacific Railroad Company collected their fingerprints in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
Union Pacific used an automated gate system employing fingerprint scans at its Illinois intermodal facilities from 2013–2021.
Union Pacific held several government contracts in the relevant period, including with Metra (operating commuter trains), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) (infrastructure projects), and participation in the CREATE program (a public-private partnership for transportation).
Union Pacific also worked as a subcontractor for federal agencies, handling shipments that passed through relevant facilities.
The sole summary judgment issue was whether Union Pacific was categorically exempt from BIPA under § 25(e) due to its status as a government contractor.
The court reviewed both the statutory text and prior state case law for interpretive guidance, as the Illinois Supreme Court has not addressed the issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 25(e) provides categorical BIPA exemption for government contractors	No categorical exemption; must be a nexus between contract and BIPA violation	All government contractors categorically exempt from BIPA	No categorical exemption; must be nexus between contract and BIPA violation
If not categorical, whether fingerprint collection was within scope of any government contract	Not within scope; contracts unrelated to fingerprinting	Contracts (esp. Metra, IDOT, CREATE) are sufficiently related	Fingerprint collection not within scope of cited government contracts
Whether federal contracts qualify under § 25(e)	Federal contracts not covered by § 25(e)	Federal work is relevant for exemption	Issue reserved for further factual development in discovery

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (articulates the summary judgment standard and definition of genuine dispute)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Menards, Inc., 285 F.3d 630 (federal court approach when state Supreme Court has not ruled on an issue)
In re Hernandez, 918 F.3d 563 (Illinois statutory interpretation principles)