Background
Diondra Jones filed a putative class action against her former employer, Help At Home, LLC, alleging violations of sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Jones alleged that Help At Home collected her fingerprint during employee onboarding without providing the required disclosures, obtaining a written release, publishing a retention-and-destruction policy, or obtaining consent before disseminating her biometric information.
Help At Home moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. It submitted evidence that it had contracted with the Illinois Department on Aging since 1979 to provide in-home services through the Community Care Program and that its provider agreement required compliance with the Illinois Health Care Worker Background Check Act. The circuit court dismissed the complaint because section 25(e) of BIPA exempts government contractors when working for a state agency or local government.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that BIPA’s government-contractor exemption applies when a private entity acts within the scope of its government contract; the exemption does not categorically protect the contractor for every purpose or at all times.
Help At Home was acting within the scope of its contract when it collected Jones’s fingerprints. Its agreement with the Department on Aging expressly required compliance with state law, including the Background Check Act, which required a fingerprint-based criminal-history check for covered health-care employees receiving conditional employment offers. Because Jones was hired to provide direct care and did not dispute that Help At Home qualified as a health-care employer, the fingerprint collection fell within the contractual work protected by section 25(e). The circuit court therefore properly dismissed the BIPA claims without reaching Help At Home’s other defenses.
Key Takeaways
- BIPA’s section 25(e) exemption protects a government contractor only when it is acting within the scope of its government contract.
- A contract requiring compliance with a fingerprint-based background-check statute can bring an employer’s fingerprint collection within the exemption.
- The decision is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order, subject to the limited citation circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that the government-contractor exemption turns on the connection between the challenged biometric practice and the contractor’s governmental duties, not merely on whether the defendant holds a government contract. Contractors invoking section 25(e) should be prepared to show that the collection or use at issue was required by, or undertaken within the scope of, the relevant contract.
For employees and other BIPA plaintiffs, allegations that a contractor also performs private work may not defeat dismissal when the particular biometric collection arose from obligations tied to the government contract.