As detailed in prior posts, in January, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead an actual injury beyond a per se statutory violation to state a claim for statutory liquidated damages or injunctive relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). While recent decisions applying BIPA have been largely Illinois-based, the Ninth Circuit recently applied BIPA in Patel v. Facebook to affirm a lower court’s ruling that plaintiffs in the ongoing Facebook BIPA class action alleged a concrete injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing and that the class was properly certified.

The Ninth Circuit is the first federal circuit court to conclude that a plaintiff alleging a BIPA violation has standing for purposes of Article III of the US Constitution. The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify BIPA class actions, within and outside of Illinois. 
Continue Reading

California is known as one of the most progressive, pro-employee states in the country. But if the last several months are any indication, Illinois is quickly catching up.

Here’s a quick overview of what’s happening in the prairie state:

Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act   

What’s New? As of January 1, 2019, employers must reimburse employees for all “necessary” expenses. So what’s a necessary expense? Anything required of the employee in the discharge of his/her employment duties that “inure to the primary benefit of the employer.” Computers, cell phones, uniforms, etc. may all constitute “necessary” expenses that the employer is required to reimburse.

Takeaway: Employers should review their policies, job descriptions, and third party contracts to determine which positions/roles may result in necessary expenditures.


Continue Reading

As we previously reported, in January, in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead an actual injury beyond a per se statutory violation to state a claim for statutory liquidated damages or injunctive relief under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA).

(By way of reminder, the Illinois BIPA prohibits gathering biometric data such as fingerprints without notice and consent. It also requires data collectors adopt a written policy and a destruction policy for data which is no longer required.)

In the wake of Rosenbach, dozens more class actions have been filed in Illinois state courts. Following Rosenbach,plaintiffs can seek injunctive relief and statutory penalties under the BIPA on a class-wide basis. Despite the flurry of activity by the plaintiff’s bar over the past several years, Illinois courts have only recently started addressing such claims. The rulings since Rosenbach demonstrate a strong commitment not to deviate from the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding.
Continue Reading

On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporate et al., extending the reach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA is an Illinois privacy law that regulates the collection, use, and retention of biometric data such as fingerprints, face, and eye scans by imposing procedural requirements on corporations that collect the data. Though not an employment case, the decision impacts employers using biometric time-keeping systems in Illinois.

Continue Reading

2018 was, without a doubt, another extraordinary year for US employers. The #MeToo movement continues to have a tremendous impact on the workplace. In addition, the thorny issue of how to manage contractor classifications in the gig economy continued to evolve and new DOJ enforcement activity is heightening concerns about no-poaching agreements and other antitrust

Many viewed the highly anticipated coming into force of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25, 2018 as the “finish line” for the marathon efforts towards privacy compliance that took place in the months running up to this date. In reality, however, this date should be treated instead as a “starting

By now, you have no doubt heard about the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, going into effect January 1, 2020. This new privacy legislation will force many companies – whether headquartered in or out of California – into compliance with several onerous requirements. Some have called it California’s answer to the (notorious) GDPR. But what does this mean from an employment perspective?

It means that despite the title, the Act extends certain protections to California employees because it defines “consumer” as “any natural person who is a California resident.” Therefore, regardless of where your company is located, if it employs at least one individual who is living or domiciled in the state and also meets one of the thresholds below, it must comply at least with regard to all California residents, including employees.


Continue Reading

(With special thanks to our Global Equity Services team and Lothar Determann for collaborating on this post.)

One month from today, on May 25, 2018, the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will go into effect. In light of this, we have been recommending companies review their data privacy policies and practices in the context of equity plan participation and update their share plan documents. In the final month, we want to highlight these items again and encourage you to make sure your company’s equity programs are ready for the GDPR.


Continue Reading

The new data privacy rules are just around the corner…are you ready?

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force May 25, 2018. GDPR introduces stricter requirements and higher penalties for violations, so it is important for companies to review their data privacy compliance not just with respect to customers but with respect