BENTON – Jermaine Minor, who claimed Sauget retailer Oldcastle violated Illinois law on privacy of fingerprints, died waiting for judges to interpret the law.
Oldcastle notified U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of his death on Nov. 15, advising her that Minor’s counsel made Oldcastle aware.
Minor sued Oldcastle 19 months ago but trial judges have frozen his case and many like it while they await guidance from above.
Reviewing judges must craft statutes of limitations for the Biometric Privacy Act because authors of the law didn’t include any.
Also, the Supreme Court must decide whether an employer violates the law when it first obtains a fingerprint or each time a worker clocks in or out.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of workers, each shift would carry a penalty of at least $2,000.
That would equal about $500,000 a year for each worker.
Oldcastle’s website places it in Georgia and identifies it as North America’s leading manufacturer and supplier of concrete masonry, dry mix, and mulches.
It states that it has 6,500 employees at 195 locations in 36 states and Canada.
A staffing agency sent Minor to Sauget for 25 shifts in the holiday season of 2018.
Minor sued Oldcastle in St. Clair County circuit court in April 2021, seeking a class action for all individuals whose data it collected or stored in Illinois.
His counsel Roberto Costales and William Beaumont of Chicago claimed Oldcastle didn’t follow directives in the state’s biometric privacy law.
They claimed it didn’t notify employees that it collected and stored fingerprints and didn’t inform employees how it implemented collection and storage.
They claimed it didn’t obtain consent in writing, didn’t maintain data in a sufficiently secure manner and didn’t disclose how it would handle and destroy data.
They also claimed immutable aspects of fingerprints made them a promising source of future technology in an increasingly insecure world.
The complaint didn’t provide Minor’s residence.
Oldcastle removed it to district court on the basis of diverse citizenship and moved to stay it in anticipation of Supreme Court and appellate court decisions.
Oldcastle counsel Orly Henry of Chicago stated the Supreme Court would decide whether workers must seek relief for injury through worker’s compensation.
He stated the First District appellate court would decide whether to apply a limit of one year or five years to claims, that the Third District would address possible limits of one year, two or five, and that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals would decide whether a violation occurs upon first use of technology or occurs separately for each use.
He stated a stay would prevent the parties from conducting discovery on claims that might be eliminated or reduced in scope and value.
He stated Minor’s counsel didn’t object to a stay.
Yandle granted a stay pending decisions on limitations and frequency of violations.
She stated she wouldn’t grant a stay pending the worker’s compensation case.
She found other federal and state judges proceeded on an assumption that the Supreme Court wouldn’t apply worker’s compensation law.
This January, Henry filed a status report stating the Seventh Circuit certified the question of single or constant violation to the Illinois Supreme Court.
He stated the First District set a limit on claims at five years for parts of the law and one year for other parts.
Days later the Supreme Court allowed an appeal of the First District decision.
In February the Supreme Court rejected application of worker’s compensation law.
Also in February the defendant in the Third District grew weary of waiting for a decision and moved for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied the motion in March.
The Supreme Court heard argument on single violation or constant violation in May and on the First District case in September.
The Justices hadn’t reached a decision on either case as of Nov. 18.