427 F.Supp.3d 984
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Treadwell, a PSI production assembler hired April 2018, alleges PSI required employees to scan fingerprints into a NOVAtime database for timekeeping.
- He asserts multiple BIPA violations: no written notice of purpose/retention, no written release as a condition of employment, no public retention schedule, and no consent before disclosing biometric data to third parties.
- Treadwell seeks statutory damages plus declaratory and injunctive relief as a class action plaintiff; NOVAtime was initially named but dismissed.
- PSI moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) IWCA exclusive-remedy preempts BIPA monetary claims and (2) BIPA claims are time-barred by a one- or two-year statute of limitations.
- The Court evaluated whether Treadwell plausibly pleaded (a) his injuries were non-accidental or otherwise outside IWCA preemption and (b) whether the statute-of-limitations defense could be resolved on the pleadings.
- The Court denied PSI’s motion to dismiss: it found Treadwell plausibly alleged non-accidental intent and that his injuries likely are not the type "compensable" under the IWCA; statute-of-limitations defenses were left for later stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IWCA preempts BIPA statutory-damages claims (accident inquiry) | Treadwell: PSI intentionally implemented a biometric system without complying with BIPA; injury is non-accidental. | PSI: IWCA bars statutory claims because any injury arose in and during employment and thus is accidental/covered. | Court: Denied dismissal; plaintiff plausibly alleged PSI acted with the requisite intent so injuries are not necessarily "accidental." |
| Whether IWCA preempts BIPA claims because injuries are “compensable” under IWCA | Treadwell: His harms are informational/non-physical and thus not compensable under IWCA. | PSI: "Compensable" means any injury arising out of/in course of employment—so IWCA covers it. | Court: Found Illinois law suggests compensability focuses on injury type; Treadwell’s harms likely not compensable under IWCA; preemption not resolved for dismissal. |
| Applicable statute of limitations and accrual for BIPA claims | Treadwell: Default five-year period applies; alternatively, accrual recurs with each use/violation. | PSI: One- or two-year statutes apply; accrual occurred at onboarding when fingerprints were first collected. | Court: Declined to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds because limitations is an affirmative defense and Treadwell’s individual claims are timely; left for class certification/summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019) (holding BIPA procedural violations cause cognizable injury)
- Folta v. Ferro Eng'g, 43 N.E.3d 108 (Ill. 2015) (explaining "compensable" inquiry asks whether injury type fits within IWCA)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 564 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. 1990) (describing IWCA exclusive-remedy quid pro quo)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 408 N.E.2d 198 (Ill. 1980) (setting exceptions to IWCA exclusive remedy)
- Pathfinder Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 343 N.E.2d 913 (Ill. 1976) (defining "accident" for IWCA purposes)
- Copass v. Illinois Power Co., 569 N.E.2d 1211 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (requiring specific intent to injure for non-accidental intentional torts)
- Chicago Bldg Design, PC v. Mongolian House Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff need not plead around affirmative defenses on the face of the complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishing plausibility standard under Rule 8)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) (ignorance of the law does not negate intentional conduct for civil liability)
- Knight v. Enbridge Pipelines (FSP) L.L.C., 759 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (federal courts sitting in diversity should not predict novel developments in state law)