McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC
193 N.E.3d 1253
Ill.2022Background
- Employee Marquita McDonald sued Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleging the employer used a fingerprint timekeeping system without required written notices/releases and sought statutory liquidated damages ($1,000 per negligent violation), injunctive relief, and fees.
- Bronzeville moved to dismiss, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act (Compensation Act) exclusivity provisions bar an employee’s civil suit against an employer for workplace injuries and thus BIPA statutory-damages claims must proceed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
- The trial court denied dismissal, certified under Supreme Court Rule 308 whether the Compensation Act bars BIPA statutory damages, and stayed the case; the appellate court answered the certified question “no.”
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and considered whether a BIPA statutory-violation claim is the kind of injury that is "compensable" under the Compensation Act (the key exception to exclusivity).
- The Court held BIPA violations are prophylactic/privacy injuries (loss of the ability to withhold biometric consent), not physical or psychological harms that fit the Compensation Act’s remedial purpose; because the alleged injury does not categorically fit within the Compensation Act, its exclusivity provisions do not bar McDonald’s BIPA statutory-damages claim.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate judgment, allowing McDonald’s BIPA claim to proceed in circuit court and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provisions bar an employee’s BIPA statutory-damages claim against an employer | McDonald: BIPA creates a private right of action and its statutory injury (loss of biometric privacy/consent) is not a compensable work-related injury under the Compensation Act, so exclusivity does not apply | Bronzeville: The alleged injury occurred in the course of employment and thus must be adjudicated under the Compensation Act; exclusivity requires resort to workers’ compensation | Held: No — BIPA statutory-violation claims seeking liquidated damages do not categorically fit within the Compensation Act and are not preempted by its exclusivity provisions |
| Whether an injury is “compensable” under the Compensation Act for purposes of exclusivity (scope of the compensability exception) | McDonald: Only physical/psychological injuries affecting earning capacity are compensable; statutory privacy violations are distinct and not intended for compensation via workers’ comp | Bronzeville: The compensability exception should not be narrowly read; many nonphysical harms have been found compensable and allowing BIPA suits would undermine exclusivity | Held: The compensability inquiry asks whether the type of injury categorically fits within the purview of the workers’ compensation scheme; BIPA privacy-prophylactic injuries do not, so they are not compensable under the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Folta v. Ferro Eng’g, 2015 IL 118070 (Ill. 2015) (explains compensability inquiry: whether the injury type categorically fits within the purview of workers’ compensation)
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. 2019) (holds BIPA violations give a private right of action; statutory violation itself is a sufficient injury)
- Gannon v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. Ry. Co., 13 Ill.2d 460 (Ill. 1958) (workers’ compensation exclusivity barred a statutory tort claim for an on-the-job physical injury)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill.2d 229 (Ill. 1980) (exclusivity applied where emotional distress was linked to workplace injury/conditions)
- Pathfinder Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 62 Ill.2d 556 (Ill. 1975) (defines compensable injury to include harmful change to the human organism, including brain and nerves)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 1990) (discusses quid pro quo of no-fault employer liability and exclusivity of statutory remedy)
- Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Ill. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 236 Ill.2d 132 (Ill. 2010) (workers’ compensation is remedial and must be liberally construed to provide financial protection to injured workers)