EAST ST. LOUIS - Operators of Sky Zone trampoline park in Fairview Heights agreed to pay $285,000 to settle claims that they violated the privacy of worker through the use of fingerprint scanners.
Owners of Sky Zones throughout Illinois agreed to pay $1,050,000.
Plaintiff Madisyn Stauffer moved for preliminary approval of both settlements totaling $1,335,000 at U.S. district court on March 12.
Stauffer's counsel Kevin Green stated local Sky Zone operator Innovative Heights would make automatic payments to 244 individuals who worked there since Aug. 19, 2014.
Green stated he expected each of them to receive at least $723.
He stated Sky Zone would make automatic payments to 511 workers and contact 1,311 workers at three Chicago area locations who can submit claims.
He stated he expected at least $350 per person, but possibly $650 or more.
Last year the provider of Sky Zone’s fingerprint software, Center Edge, settled for $1,175,000.
Green stated at the time that Center Edge would make 2,177 automatic payments and the 1,311 Chicago area workers could submit claims.
He stated payments would range from $230 to $330.
These amounts run counter to dire warnings that spread a year ago after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a violation occurs every time a worker presses a scanner.
That meant the privacy law’s liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation could apply four times a day for a potential award of about $1 million a year for each worker.
Liquidated damages of $5,000 for reckless violations could reach $5 million per worker.
Critics of the decision called it annihilative liability, meaning businesses could not survive judgment on that scale.
Green offered reasons to settle for hundreds per worker rather than litigate for millions.
He stated Sky Zone denied that it possessed, collected, captured, or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or information of any class members.
Sky Zone argued that any such data was obtained by others.
Sky Zone asserted 16 affirmative defenses.
Green stated that if litigation continued, Sky Zone would oppose certification of a class action.
Sky Zone maintained in its answer to the complaint that the case was inappropriate for class treatment.
Green stated a ruling would be subject to immediate appeal, adding further delay.
Then he addressed the Supreme Court decision.
“There also remains uncertainty about what the maximum statutory recovery means in light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle,” he wrote.
He stated the court held that a party violates the law not only the first time an entity scans a fingerprint but also with each subsequent scan or collection.
“The Court also stated in dicta, however, that the statutory damages are not intended to result in the financial destruction of a business,” he wrote.
Cornell Law School defines dicta as a comment, suggestion or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve a case.
According to Cornell, dicta does not legally bind other courts but may be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation.
Richard Cornfeld, Daniel Levy and Thomas Horscroft represent Stauffer, along with Green.
They all practice at Goldenberg Heller in Edwardsville.
Charles Insler and Glenn Davis of Hepler Broom in St. Louis represent Innovative Heights.
Raj Shah, Eric Roberts and Kenneth Schmetterer of Chicago and Jennifer Maloney of St. Louis represent Sky Zone.
Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty presides.