At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows Of Harvard College, Nos. 20-1199 & 21-707, 2023 WL 4239254 (U.S. June 29, 2023), outlawed race-based affirmative action in higher education. Splitting along ideological lines, the Court’s conservative supermajority ruled, 6-3, the college admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The monumental decision, which dispensed with 45 years of precedent allowing race-conscious admission policies to achieve a diverse student body, has upended the world of higher education.Continue Reading What Does Affirmative Action’s Death Knell Mean for Employers?
David Poell is a partner in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm’s Chicago office, particularly focusing on the areas of consumer privacy and class action litigation.
In a victory for the plaintiffs’ bar, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that all claims under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. For years, litigants and courts have grappled with whether BIPA claims must be brought within one, two, or five years of an alleged BIPA violation. The Court’s long-awaited decision in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801 (Ill. Feb. 2, 2023), puts an end to that pervasive uncertainty. Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules All BIPA Claims Are Subject to Five-Year Time Limit
On February 3, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511, ruling that statutory violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) are not preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”). The McDonald decision is a victory for BIPA plaintiffs and shuts the door on a defense that had been widely invoked by employers defending BIPA class actions.
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules BIPA Claims Are Not Preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act
In a recent decision regarding an employee’s claims for violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asked the Illinois Supreme Court to provide much-needed clarification on the accrual of BIPA violations. See Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., Case No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021).
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Certifies Hotly-Contested BIPA Accrual Issue to Illinois Supreme Court
Continuing the trend of recognizing Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) as a muscular privacy-protective statute, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District has ruled that the most common statutory violations of BIPA are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. BIPA imposes several duties on companies that collect, store or use biometric data—e.g., fingerprints, facial geometry scans—from Illinois residents. Prevailing plaintiffs may recover liquidated damages ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 for each BIPA violation (plus attorneys’ fees), and these provisions incentivize plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring BIPA claims as class actions.
Continue Reading Illinois Appellate Court Affirms 5-Year Statute of Limitations Period for Certain BIPA Claims
For the first time, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The Court’s initial review of the CFAA comes in the wake of a federal circuit split as to whether the statute can only be deployed against hackers and unauthorized users of electronic systems, or also against authorized users who use the information for unauthorized purposes. The Court’s decision may significantly affect not only how law enforcement uses the CFAA, but also whether civil litigants, such as employers, may use the CFAA to defend against unauthorized employee activities.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Case Preview—Van Buren v. United States: Does Use of a Computer for an “Improper Purpose” Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?