Wordlaw v. Enterprise Leasing Company Of Chicago, LLC
1:20-cv-03200
N.D. Ill.Dec 21, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Dawon Wordlaw worked at an Enterprise car-rental facility in Cook County and from 2016–2019 clocked in/out by scanning fingerprints.
- Defendants are Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC (Enterprise Chicago) and parent Enterprise Holdings, Inc.; Wordlaw received paychecks from Enterprise Chicago but alleges Enterprise Holdings controlled privacy and timekeeping policies.
- Defendants implemented a biometric timekeeping system but (allegedly) failed to provide written notice, obtain written consent, publish a retention/destruction policy, or disclose sharing practices.
- Wordlaw alleges defendants collected, retained, and disseminated her fingerprint data (to subsidiaries, data-storage vendors, payroll providers) in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court denied the motion and ordered answers and a joint status report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act preempts the BIPA claim | BIPA injuries were intentional/policy-driven and are not compensable under the WCA, so WCA does not preempt | WCA preempts employee claims arising from workplace conduct | WCA is an affirmative defense; BIPA claim not preempted because the alleged violations were intentional/policy-based and BIPA injuries are not the kind WCA covers |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges BIPA violations (collection, retention, disclosure under §15) | Wordlaw: daily fingerprint collection without written notice or consent, absence of retention policy, and dissemination to third parties | Defendants: improper group pleading; no specific facts showing possession or disclosure by defendants | Complaint plausibly alleges violations of §§15(b) (collection/informed consent), 15(a) (retention/destruction policy), and 15(d) (disclosure); allegations give sufficient notice at pleading stage |
| Whether Enterprise Holdings can be held liable | Wordlaw: Enterprise Holdings controlled timekeeping/privacy (direct liability) or is a direct participant/joint employer | Defendants: Holdings did not implement or control the system; Code of Conduct is generic and insufficient; In re Enterprise argues Holdings is not a joint employer | Dismissal improper; allegations that Holdings exercised primary control over timekeeping/privacy make a claim plausible; direct-participant or joint-employer theories require fact-intensive proof in discovery |
| Whether plaintiff sufficiently pleaded intent or recklessness for enhanced damages under BIPA §20 | Wordlaw: defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing BIPA applied and failed to comply; seeks statutory enhanced damages | Defendants: complaint lacks allegations of intentionality or recklessness so enhanced damages should be stricken | Mental-state specifics are not required to survive a 12(b)(6) motion; complaint plausibly alleges negligent/reckless conduct and may pursue enhanced damages at later stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617 (BIPA informed-consent regime is central)
- Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC, 980 F.3d 1146 (retention violations independently injure privacy under BIPA)
- Baylay v. Etihad Airways P.J.S.C., 881 F.3d 1032 (affirmative defenses not generally resolved on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Folta v. Ferro Eng'g, 2015 IL 118070 (Workers' Compensation Act preemption framework)
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (BIPA private right of action and remedy interpretation)
- In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Empl. Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462 (Third Circuit joint-employer analysis under FLSA; not preclusive here)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill.2d 274 (direct-participant parental-liability doctrine)
- Village of Winfield v. Ill. State Labor Relations Bd., 176 Ill.2d 54 (factors for joint-employer determination)