The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Union Pacific Railroad Company in a case involving the collection of biometric data from truck drivers. This decision affects how companies collect and handle biometric information, particularly under Illinois law. The ruling is significant for truck drivers who access intermodal facilities operated by Union Pacific.
The case, known as Ernest Payton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (docket number 26-1946), centers on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This law regulates how companies collect and use biometric data, such as fingerprints. The court's ruling could have wider implications for businesses operating in Illinois that use similar data collection methods.
Background
The dispute involves twelve truck drivers who claimed that Union Pacific violated BIPA by using fingerprint scans to verify their identities when entering intermodal facilities. Union Pacific argued that it was exempt from the Act because it had contracts with state agencies, specifically for operating commuter trains and performing design work on overpasses. The plaintiffs contended that these contracts were unrelated to the biometric data collection at the intermodal terminals.
The case reached the Seventh Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment. The district court sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the company was subject to BIPA at its intermodal terminals. The district court later certified the decision for interlocutory appeal, allowing the Seventh Circuit to review the case before it went to trial.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, affirmed the district court's decision. The court ruled that Union Pacific's interpretation of the law was not valid. The key issue was the meaning of the phrase “when working for that State agency or local unit of government.” The court highlighted two interpretations: Union Pacific's view that it was exempt during any contract period, and the plaintiffs' view that the exemption applied only when fulfilling specific contracts.
The court stated, “We think it unlikely that the Supreme Court of Illinois would disagree” with the appellate courts that had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' interpretation.
The court noted that previous appellate decisions had interpreted the statutory language to mean “in the course of” fulfilling a contract, rather than simply “during the time” a contract existed. This interpretation aligns with the plaintiffs' argument that the exemption does not apply to the biometric data collection occurring at the intermodal terminals.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for how companies in Illinois collect biometric data. It clarifies that businesses cannot simply rely on contractual relationships with state agencies to exempt themselves from compliance with BIPA. The court's decision reinforces the need for companies to ensure that their data collection practices align with the law, particularly when interacting with individuals whose biometric information is being collected.
The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving biometric data collection in Illinois. It indicates that courts may closely scrutinize the relationship between contracts with state agencies and the actual practices of biometric data collection. This decision may encourage more individuals to seek legal recourse if they believe their biometric information has been mishandled.
What's Next
Union Pacific has the option to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Illinois. However, it remains to be seen whether the company will pursue this route. There are currently no related cases pending that directly address this issue.