Here, we will discuss the Illinois Sunset biometric privacy class action lawsuit against the Illinois chain Sunset Food Mart in state court, where a seventh circuit panel ruled that a federal judge was right to remand or send it back.
This lawsuit was led by Sunset employee Railey, who alleged the grocery chain violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by demanding employees clock in and out of work. However, the company did not tell the employees when they scanned the information.
This case belongs in state court because of a home state exception in the class action fairness act. It allows state jurisdiction when two-thirds of the class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the Illinois Sunset Biometric Privacy Class Action lawsuit started.
Overview of Illinois Sunset Biometric Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
Ranita Railey placed her hand on a biometric scanner at the Sunset Food Mart in Lake Forest, Illinois, where she was working. Later, she brought a class action lawsuit in court alleging Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act violations. After two years, Sunset removed the case to federal court. The court found Sunset’s removal untimely and exercised the appellate jurisdiction Congress provided in the Class Action Fairness Act.
Ranita Railey started working at Sunset Food Mart, a small Illinois grocery chain with five stores, in January 2016. After three years, she filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and Sunset employees. They alleged that the company’s use of biometric time clocks violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In November 2020, Railey’s complaint survived dismissal, and Sunset removed the case to federal court.
The company explained the timing of the removal because of the interrogatory response. In October, she confirmed her membership in a labor union. After some months, in January 2021, Sunset filed what it called ‘Supplemental Statement in Support of Jurisdiction,’ which urged that the district court find that the class action fairness act supported removal.
Sunset Food Mart Misses Filing Deadline, Leading to Legal Implications
According to the panel ruling, Sunset argued that the case should be removed in November 2020. The Labor Management Relations Act defended Railey’s claims. Sunset had 30 days to request removal after January 2020 in response to Railey’s first request for documents. However, the Seventh Circuit panel ruled that Sunset had 30 days after Railey filed the case in February 2019. Sunset could not meet the deadline to file for preemption-based removal.
The initial complaint has all the information Sunset would need ‘with hardly any effort’ to confirm the labor union membership status. Initially, the district court assessed the timeliness of Sunset’s preemption-based removal. The court concluded that the case was not removable due to Railey’s alleged union membership, a key factor in the court’s decision.
The district court focused on the information the parties exchanged in discovery. After the survey, the court focused on Railey’s first request in January 2020. At that time, Sunset agreed to produce the agreements with the Independent Food Clerks Union, with which the plaintiff was affiliated before January 2018.
Second, the court considered Sunset’s alternative contention that this Fairness Act lawsuit supplied an independent basis for removal. The company said Railey changed the domicile from Illinois to Georgia. Well, the litigation became diverse, and the case was removable.