Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company
926 F.3d 898
7th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are airline employees who allege Southwest and United require fingerprint timekeeping in violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for lack of written notice, consent, published retention protocols, and improper disclosure to third-party vendors.
- Both carriers assert the unions consented (expressly or via management-rights clauses) and that any dispute over fingerprint use is a matter for a Railway Labor Act (RLA) adjustment board, not state court.
- Two consolidated suits took different paths: the Southwest action was dismissed by the district court as belonging to the RLA process; the United action was removed to federal court, remanded to state court, then appealed by United.
- The Seventh Circuit considered (1) Article III standing, (2) whether BIPA claims about workplace fingerprinting are preempted by the RLA as “minor disputes” requiring adjustment-board resolution, and (3) whether removal of the United case was proper (federal-question/complete preemption and/or CAFA).
- The court held plaintiffs had Article III standing based on concrete consequences (changes to terms/conditions and increased risk of disclosure from retention/third-party access).
- The court concluded disputes about whether unions consented and about implementation/retention are RLA “minor disputes” for an adjustment board; it affirmed Southwest dismissal and vacated remand in United, directing referral to an adjustment board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III) | BIPA violation itself suffices; plaintiffs affected by collection/retention | No concrete injury from statutory violation alone | Plaintiffs have standing: potential changes to employment terms and risk of disclosure create concrete injury |
| RLA preemption / forum | BIPA claims enforceable in court; state law governs biometric privacy | RLA requires adjustment-board resolution for disputes implicating collective bargaining | Disputes over fingerprinting (consent, retention, vendor use) are RLA "minor disputes" for adjustment boards |
| Whether unions are "authorized representatives" under BIPA | Individual workers can insist on statutory notices/consent; union is not necessarily the representative | Unions are exclusive bargaining agents and qualify as authorized representatives for collective issues | Union can be a legally authorized representative; state cannot authorize direct individual bargaining around mandatory bargaining subjects |
| Removal jurisdiction (United) | Complaint framed solely under state law — should stay/remand to state court | Federal-question jurisdiction via complete preemption of RLA and/or CAFA removal | Federal-question jurisdiction supports removal; CAFA could also apply but United's CAFA removal papers were deficient; case remanded to district court with direction to refer to adjustment board |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (RLA requires board resolution of disputes about interpretation or application of collective-bargaining agreements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (Article III injury-in-fact requires concrete and particularized harm)
- Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) (risk of disclosure of personal data can support standing)
- Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1988) (state-law claims concerning individual-specific rights that do not require interpreting collective-bargaining agreements may proceed)
- Hughes v. United Air Lines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of Lingle’s principles under the RLA)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (doctrine of complete preemption: some federal statutes can convert certain state-law claims into federal ones)