Illinois Supreme Court Affirms That Federal Labor Law Preempts Plaintiff's BIPA Claim
Insights for Employers Alert | 2 min read
Mar 23, 2023
We share news of a significant defense victory before the Illinois Supreme Court in a claim involving the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In a case argued by Hinshaw partner John Ryan, the Supreme Court handed down the first employer-friendly decision in any BIPA case it has considered. The issue before the Court was whether "Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §185) preempt Privacy Act claims (740 ILCS 14/1) asserted by bargaining unit employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement?"
In plain English, the Court had to determine whether federal labor law governs the resolution of a BIPA claim, and would a BIPA plaintiff, either individually or as a class representative, have to litigate that claim through the grievance and arbitrations mechanisms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. The Court held that "[g]iven the language in the CBA and the LMRA, it is both logical and reasonable to conclude any dispute must be resolved according to federal law and the agreement between the parties."
Plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit. Pursuant to the CBA, the Plaintiff’s union was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the bargaining unit. Instead of grieving the matter with his union pursuant to the terms of the CBA, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in Cook County alleging that the Defendant violated BIPA because it required Plaintiff and those in the putative class to use a hand scan timeclock.
Defendant is represented by Mr. Ryan, and at oral argument, he endured a barrage of questions relating to the scope of the CBA and the specific facts of the case. Mr. Ryan responded by re-focusing the argument back to LMRA preemption principles and the decisions of the Seventh Circuit on similar cases involving BIPA in unionized environments. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately concluded that "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."
The win provides a measure of relief for BIPA defendants in circumstances where the named plaintiff or members of the putative class are subject to a collective bargaining unit.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”



