Il Supreme Court Rules Art Vii Foreign Language
Illinois Supreme Court Finds Worker's Compensation Law Does Not Foreclose Illinois BIPA Claims
On Feb 3, 2022, in a much-anticipated opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois Worker'southward Compensation Act does non bar claims against employers under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Human action ("BIPA"). This decision forecloses some other defense that in BIPA cases since the statute has been the subject of relentless litigation beginning 2019.
In the case,McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, the plaintiff sued asserting various BIPA violations when the defendant allegedly failed to obtain written releases from its employees with respect to the collection, use and storage of biometric information, failed to inform the employees that biometric information was being collected, failed to provide a written memory policy, and failed to inform them in writing of the purpose and length of fourth dimension for which their biometric information was being collected, stored and used. In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the exclusive remedy provisions in the Worker'southward Compensation Act barred the claims.
The Circuit Court of Cook Canton, Illinois rejected the accused'due south statement property that the plaintiff's injury involved the loss of the ability to maintain privacy rights, which was not an injury compensable under the Worker'due south Compensation Act. A panel of the intermediate appellate court also ended that the exclusive remedy provisions in the Worker's Bounty Act practice not bar a merits for statutory damages nether BIPA. Post-obit the appeal, the defendant petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for review. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Worker's Compensation Act exclusivity provisions practise non bar an employee'southward claim for statutory damages under BIPA. The plaintiff is permitted to pursue her BIPA claims in Circuit Courtroom rather than through the Worker'southward Compensation Commission because the alleged injury was not 1 that categorically fits within the Worker's Compensation Human action. In other words, the lawsuit is not preempted by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act.
In deciding the instance, the Illinois Supreme Court discussed at length the statutory language of BIPA and the Worker'due south Compensation Human activity. It also considered prior decisions of that court as well every bit appellate courts apropos the scope of the Worker's Compensation Act and injuries that might be compensated under information technology. Ultimately, the court ended that an injury to privacy rights for which the plaintiff seeks liquidated statutory damages nether BIPA is not an injury that the Worker's Compensation Act contemplates. Every bit the court interpreted information technology, the Worker'southward Compensation Act'south main purpose is to provide financial protection for injured workers until they can return to piece of work. That is, the injuries that bear on an employee's capacity to perform employment-related duties are the types of injuries that the Worker's Compensation scheme was designed to compensate.
On the other hand, the injuries caused by violating BIPA are dissimilar in nature and scope from the concrete and psychological work injuries compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act. According to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Excursion Court correctly reasoned that the plaintiff's loss of the ability to maintain her privacy rights was not a psychological or physical injury compensable under the Worker'southward Compensation Human action. Likewise, the court found the appeals court had correctly ruled that a BIPA violation is non the type of injury that categorically fits inside the purview of the Worker'southward Compensation Act and is thus not compensable under that Act. The courtroom also found that BIPA's statutory language supports the determination the legislature did not intend BIPA would exist preempted by the Worker's Bounty Deed. To that end, the court stated that the legislature was enlightened that BIPA claims could arise in an employment context still treated them identically to not-employee BIPA claims (except every bit to permissible methods of obtaining consent). Accordingly, the text of BIPA is further evidence the legislature did non intend for BIPA claims to be presented to the Worker's Compensation Commission. Notably, the Supreme Courtroom mentions that the potential consequences that may be brought upon employers in the State of Illinois are significant. Nevertheless, the court believed that the balance to be struck under BIPA given the category of injury is more properly addressed to the legislature rather than the courts.
Finally, in a concurring opinion, ane justice stated he also believed that, because the plaintiff had not suffered a physical or emotional injury, the Worker's Compensation Act did not apply. In particular, the justice recognized that the plaintiff had withdrawn and amended her complaint to remove allegations that she had suffered mental anguish or other actual damages. Instead, she was pursuing statutory amercement alone for the BIPA violations.
TheMcDonald opinion highlights the need for companies to follow BIPA'south prophylactic requirements. The potentially substantial and catastrophic penalties that the statutory damages provision of BIPA permits appear probable to continue to result in more litigation until, as the court referenced, the Illinois legislature takes some activity to lessen the impact on businesses.
© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California National Law Review, Book XII, Number 35
- Printer-friendly
- Email this Commodity
- Download PDF
TRENDING LEGAL Assay
Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/illinois-supreme-court-finds-worker-s-compensation-law-does-not-preclude-illinois
0 Response to "Il Supreme Court Rules Art Vii Foreign Language"
Post a Comment