Background
Union Pacific Railroad used fingerprint scans between 2013 and 2021 to verify truck drivers entering its Illinois intermodal freight facilities. Twelve drivers sued, alleging that the practice violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Union Pacific sought summary judgment under BIPA’s exemption for a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a state or local governmental entity “when working for” that entity. The railroad relied on contracts to operate commuter trains for Metra and to perform design work involving overpasses and grade crossings. The district court denied summary judgment because those contracts were unrelated to the intermodal freight operations where the fingerprint scans occurred, then certified the ruling for interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the Illinois Supreme Court would likely interpret “when working for” a governmental entity to mean “in the course of” performing the government contract, rather than throughout any period when the defendant happens to have some government contract. Although both interpretations were linguistically plausible, three Illinois appellate decisions had uniformly favored the narrower, “in the course of” reading, including one that adopted it as a holding.
Because Union Pacific’s Metra and infrastructure-design contracts had nothing to do with its intermodal freight facilities, the exemption did not cover the fingerprint collection challenged here. The court declined to decide whether BIPA also requires a closer nexus between a government contract and the particular collection of biometric information, explaining that the issue was not presented on these facts.
Key Takeaways
- BIPA’s government-contractor exemption does not apply merely because a defendant has some contract with a state or local governmental entity.
- The exempt activity must occur in the course of work performed for the governmental entity.
- The court left unresolved whether the statute requires an additional nexus between the government contract and the specific biometric-data collection.
Why It Matters
The ruling prevents entities with unrelated government contracts from claiming a blanket exemption from BIPA. For contractors operating both governmental and private lines of business, the decision makes the relationship between the challenged biometric practice and the contracted government work central to the exemption analysis.
The opinion also shows the Seventh Circuit following a consistent line of intermediate Illinois appellate authority when predicting how the Illinois Supreme Court would resolve an unsettled question of state law.