McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC
174 N.E.3d 578
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Marquita McDonald alleged Bronzeville required employees to scan fingerprints into a timeclock and that defendants violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to: give written notice, state purpose/retention period, and obtain written release.
- The amended complaint sought injunctive relief and BIPA statutory liquidated damages ($1,000 per negligent violation) and attorneys’ fees; McDonald dropped her common-law negligence claim and allegations of mental anguish.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusivity provisions preempt employee suits for BIPA statutory damages.
- The circuit court denied dismissal, certified under Ill. S. Ct. R. 308 the question whether WCA exclusivity bars an employee’s claim for statutory BIPA damages against an employer, and stayed proceedings.
- The appellate court answered the certified question: WCA exclusivity does not bar a BIPA statutory damages claim against an employer because those liquidated statutory damages are not “compensable” under the WCA’s remedial scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCA exclusivity bars an employee’s claim for BIPA statutory (liquidated) damages against an employer | McDonald: BIPA statutory damages flow from a statutory privacy right, are not the type of work-related injury the WCA covers | Bronzeville: WCA’s exclusivity replaces other remedies for employer–employee injuries, so it bars BIPA claims arising from employment | No — exclusivity does not bar BIPA statutory damages claims; such claims are not compensable under the WCA |
| Whether a BIPA statutory-violation injury is “compensable” under WCA (i.e., categorically within WCA’s purview) | McDonald: BIPA violations create a standalone statutory injury (no actual damages required) and are preventative/deterrent, not typical worker injuries | Bronzeville: The statutory harm arises from employment-related conduct and thus falls within WCA compensation scheme | The court concluded BIPA statutory violations do not categorically fit within the WCA’s remedial purpose and so are not compensable under the WCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070 (clarifies “compensable” means whether the type of injury categorically fits within the WCA)
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (BIPA violations confer a statutory injury and standing without proof of actual damages)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (explains WCA trade-off: exclusive remedy for work-related injuries)
- Pathfinder Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 62 Ill. 2d 556 (emotional shock can be compensable under WCA)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229 (emotional distress falls within compensable injuries for WCA purposes)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (emotional injuries from false imprisonment were held compensable under WCA)