Peatry v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
February 26, 2020, Decided; February 26, 2020, Filed
No. 19 C 2942
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lisa Peatry, an employee of Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. ("Bimbo"), filed this putative class action lawsuit alleging that Bimbo violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq., through its collection, storage, and use of Peatry's biometric information. Specifically, Peatry brings claims for (1) Bimbo's failure to institute, maintain, and adhere to a publicly available retention schedule in violation of BIPA § 15(a); (2) Bimbo's failure to obtain informed, written consent before obtaining biometric information in violation of BIPA § 15(b); and (3) Bimbo's disclosure of biometric information before obtaining consent in violation of BIPA § 15(d). Bimbo moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act [*2] of 1947 (the "LMRA") and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the "NLRA") preempt Peatry's claims. Alternatively, Bimbo argues that Peatry has failed to state a BIPA claim and that the Illinois Workers Compensation Act (the "IWCA"), 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/1 et seq., bars her claims. The Court finds that § 301 of the LMRA preempts Peatry's claims arising after May 8, 2018, when a collective bargaining agreement governing Peatry's employment went into effect. But Peatry may proceed on her pre-May 8, 2018 claims, which neither the NLRA or IWCA preempt and sufficiently allege BIPA violations.
Bimbo, a bakery product manufacturing company, uses a biometric timekeeping device, provided by a third party, to track employees' hours. Upon hiring an employee, Bimbo scans their fingerprints and enrolls them in an employee database. Employees must then use their fingerprints to clock in and clock out. Bimbo does not inform its employees that it discloses the biometric information it collects to its third-party vendor and other third parties that host the database. Bimbo also does not obtain written releases before collecting the fingerprints or provide employees with a written, publicly available policy identifying a retention [*3] schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' fingerprints.
Peatry worked for Bimbo as a machine operator at Bimbo's facility at 1540 S. 54th Avenue in Cicero, Illinois. Aryzta owned this facility until Bimbo acquired it on February 9, 2018. Bimbo entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the Chemical and Production Workers Union Local No. 30, AFL-CIO (the "Union"), which became effective May 8, 2018. Among other things, the CBA provides Bimbo with certain exclusive management rights, including "to make and enforce reasonable plant rules of conduct and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions" of the CBA, "to introduce new and improved methods, materials, equipment or facilities," and "to change or eliminate existing methods, materials, equipment, or facilities." Doc. 18-1 at 8. The CBA also sets forth negotiated wage tables. Finally, as relevant here, the CBA includes a grievance procedure, requiring employees to pursue "dispute[s] regarding the meaning and application of the terms of" the CBA in accordance with that procedure. Id. at 12.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.
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32577 *; 2020 WL 919202
LISA PEATRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant.
Prior History: Peatry v. Bimbo Bakeries United States, 393 F. Supp. 3d 766, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139375 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 7, 2019)
biometric, preempts, preemption, bargaining, collection, argues, rights, timekeeping, employees, regulation, retention, damages, motion to dismiss, allegations, violations, privacy, cases, collective bargaining agreement, management rights, collective-bargaining, fingerprints, recklessness, plaintiffs', parties