Seven judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled Thursday that claims against employers for statutory damages under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) were not barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).

In the 2017 case of Marquita McDonald v Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against her employer. She alleged that the employer’s employee authentication and timekeeping system via fingerprint was violative of several requirements of § 15 of the BIPA. This included the requirements to obtain written releases before collecting biometric information and to inform employees in writing their data was being collected and stored. She sought injunctive and equitable relief to protect privacy as well as statutory damages, both under the BIPA.

The defendant moved to dismiss this class action, stating the WCA was the exclusive source of all remedies arising from injuries in the workplace. However, the Circuit Court of Cook County denied this motion, stating a privacy violation did not amount to a “psychological or physical injury” and was thus not compensable under the WCA. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration on grounds that, under the BIPA, injunctive relief could be sought against an employer but not claims for statutory damage was also unsuccessful. The appellate court ruled similarly in 2020.

Upon appeal, with several labor lawyers’ associations and local employers as amici, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that the legislative intent behind the WCA was to provide financial support to injured workers and compensability depended on the type of injury sustained. The court held there was no injury that affected “an employee’s capacity to perform employment-related duties” in the present case.

On the other hand, the court held that BIPA prevents personal and societal injuries arising from a violation of privacy. Moreover, the BIPA definition of “written release” specifically mentions employers, highlighting that the legislature did not make claims mutually exclusive under the WCA or the BIPA. The court then remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

This opinion paves the way for privacy litigation—both pending and impending—against employers in the state. When the defendant raised concerns about the proverbial “floodgates” being thrown open to class actions that could ruin employers’ rights and finances, however, the court replied by reaffirming the “substantial force” the legislature intended for privacy laws.