Biometric Information Privacy Act claims are preempted

William Walton filed a class-action complaint against his former employer alleging that the collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Walton’s and similarly situated employees’ biometric data violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Illinois Supreme Court held that his claim is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Walton v. Roosevelt University (Illinois 03/23/2023) [PDF].

Basic reasoning: Walton belonged to a union that had a collective bargaining agreement with the employer. The CBA had a "broad" management rights clause, so his claim involved interpreting the CBA. Thus, his claim has to be decided by an arbitrator, who will interpret the CBA. Of course, by now, it's probably too late to file a grievance under the CBA.

This case will mean that, in Illinois, almost any unionized employee will need to proceed under the CBA grievance procedure rather than bringing a lawsuit.

What I find interesting is that the management rights clause is pretty standard stuff:

“Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Employer shall have the exclusive right to direct the employees covered by this Agreement. Among the exclusive rights of management, but not intended as a wholly inclusive list of them are: the right to plan, direct, and control all operations performed in the building, to direct the working force, to transfer, hire, demote, promote, discipline, suspend or discharge, for proper cause, to subcontract work and to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for any other legitimate reason. The Union further understands and agrees that the Employer provides an important service to its tenants of a personalized nature to fulfill their security needs, as those needs are perceived by the Employer and the tenants. Accordingly, this Agreement shall be implemented and interpreted by the parties so as to give consideration to the needs and preferences of the tenants.”

Also interesting is that the court at one point said there is an arguable claim for preemption: "[W]e defer to the uniform federal case law on this matter and find that when an employer invokes a broad management rights clause from a CBA in response to a Privacy Act claim brought by bargaining unit employees, there is an arguable claim for preemption. Accordingly, because we do not believe the federal decisions were wrongly decided, and here the CBA contained a broad management rights clause, we find Walton’s Privacy Act claims are preempted by the LMRA."