Northern District of Illinois Certifies BIPA Class Action Against a Trucking Services Company and Its Affiliated Companies and Doubles the Certified Class Size by Including Temp Workers

Willis v. Universal Intermodal Servs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140066 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 2026), involved a plaintiff whose employer, Universal Intermodal Service, which is a trucking services company, used fingerprint scanners to track plaintiff’s time and attendance at his workplace in Harvey, Illinois. Plaintiff filed the action on behalf of himself and all other individuals at the Harvey facility. Because plaintiff’s employer was one of several wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent company with several other Illinois locations, plaintiff also filed on behalf of individuals at the other facilities where the parent company or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates operated. He claimed that all defendants had violated the putative class members’ rights under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), by collecting, storing, and disseminating plaintiff’s and the putative class members' biometric identifiers and biometric information without complying with BIPA's strict data protection, disclosure, and release requirements.

Plaintiff sought to certify a class which would have included, among others, temporary workers or those who might have signed BIPA consent forms or class action releases. Plaintiff himself, however, was not a temporary worker and had not signed either a BIPA consent form or a class action release document. The defendants argued that plaintiff could not seek certification of his proposed classes because the issues he raised would require “entity-by-entity inquiries” about who collected, possessed, disclosed, or safeguarded biometric data and what security practices applied. The defendants also argued that, as plaintiff was an employee of Intermodal, he lacks the ability to adequately represent any class of individuals who had their biometrics collected by other entities and/or those who might have signed class action waivers or consent forms.

United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Elaine E. Bucklo, granted plaintiff’s motion to certify both an “administrative class” of all individuals who have used a biometric time clock or other biometric device since March 30, 2016, at any location in Illinois at which the parent company or its subsidiaries conduct operations, and a separate “Intermodal class” that used a biometric time clock during the same time period at any Intermodal-run location in the state, i.e., run by plaintiff’s direct employer. The court concluded that Plaintiff had sufficiently identified several issues common to class members, and she could not “discern a material difference between” the claims of class members employed by plaintiff’s direct employer, Intermodal, and those who worked for other entities.

While the District Court acknowledged that it was a closer call whether Plaintiff could adequately represent class members who signed class action waivers and BIPA consent forms, neither of which he himself had signed, the court ultimately concluded that she remained unconvinced that “evidence of signed consents by some class members defeats class treatment.” This was due, in part, to the fact that several class members who signed consent forms did so after the first time their biometrics were collected, which essentially would put them on the same footing as the plaintiff. Also, the court noted that, since the defendants may rely on the consent forms not only to defeat the claims of those who signed them, but also to show the defendants’ good-faith efforts to comply with BIPA and reduce their culpability, the defense may affect the damages claims of all class members, including the plaintiff.

The court made a similar finding that the evidence that some class members signed class action waivers does not necessarily make the plaintiff an inadequate representative. The adequacy analysis generally focuses on whether the representative — not absent class members — is subject to unique defenses that might distract him from the pursuit of shared issues. Further, the defendants' suggestion that plaintiff may try to shrink the class in order to claim a greater portion of any potential settlement rested on unproven assumptions which did not necessarily prove that the plaintiff and his counsel were unable or unwilling to advocate zealously for all class members.

Finally, the defendants asserted the court should decline to certify a class that was not limited to a single class of all employed individuals who used a biometric time clock at any of the Illinois facilities of the parent company or its subsidiaries. The plaintiff, however, argued that all individuals whose fingerprints were scanned at any Illinois locations where the parent company or its subsidiaries operated — notably including temporary workers — should be included in the definition. The court agreed with the plaintiff because the complaint never sought to hold the companies liable in their capacity as an “employer” but rather as the owners and operators of devices that collected biometric data in violation of BIPA. “A reasonable interpretation of the complaint is that plaintiff is suing Intermodal not because Intermodal was his employer, but because Intermodal is the entity that allegedly collected, stored, and/or transmitted his biometrics without complying with BIPA's procedural safeguards.” In other words, Intermodal's liability to plaintiff, if any, would flow from its actions which allegedly violated BIPA and not from its status as plaintiff’s employer. This ruling was significant in that the class including temporary workers would number roughly 2,800 people, compared to the class of about 1,400 people if limited to employees.