Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Figueroa v. Kronos Inc.

Figueroa v. Kronos Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

April 13, 2020, Decided; April 13, 2020, Filed

19 C 1306

Opinion

 [*778]  Memorandum Opinion and Order

Charlene Figueroa and Jermaine Burton brought this putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against Kronos, Inc., alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. Doc. 1-1. [**2]  Kronos timely removed the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), premising jurisdiction on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Doc. 1. Kronos moves under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint, Doc. 29, and, in the alternative, under Civil Rule 23(c)(1)(A) to strike its class allegations, Doc. 32. Both motions are denied, though the court orders supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiffs' standing to pursue their claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

Background

In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the truth of the operative complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations, though not its legal conclusions. See Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC, 815 F.3d 1082, 1087 (7th Cir. 2016). The court must also consider "documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice," along with additional facts set forth in Plaintiffs' brief opposing dismissal, so long as those additional facts "are consistent with the pleadings." Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 714 F.3d 1017, 1020 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The facts are set forth as favorably to Plaintiffs as those materials allow. See Pierce v. Zoetis, Inc., 818 F.3d 274, 277 (7th Cir. 2016). In setting forth the facts at the pleading stage, the court does not vouch for their accuracy. See Goldberg v. United States, 881 F.3d 529, 531 (7th Cir. 2018).

 [*779]  Kronos is a provider of human resource management software and services. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 1. [**3]  As part of its business, Kronos provides timekeeping systems to thousands of employers in Illinois. Ibid. Those systems include biometric-based time clocks, which require employees to use their biometric information to punch in and out of work. Id. at ¶ 2.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

454 F. Supp. 3d 772 *; 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64131 **; 2020 WL 1848206

CHARLENE FIGUEROA and JERMAINE BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. KRONOS INCORPORATED, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Later proceeding at Figueroa v. Kronos Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131093, 2020 WL 4273995 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2020)

Motion denied by Figueroa v. Kronos Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220491 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2021)

CORE TERMS

biometric, collected, allegations, predominance, disseminated, identifier, stored, employees, private entity, concrete, inform, written release, class action, disclosure, discovery, entities, damages, putative class, reckless, suits, class certification, pleading stage, timekeeping, violations, questions, quotation, retention, disclose, argues, hosted