2018CH15633  Brenda Mason ("Plaintiff'') files this Class Action Complaint against Heartland  Employment Services, LLC ("Defendant") for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information  Privacy Act.  24.  When Plaintiff scanned her fingerprint in Defendant's biometric time clock, her  fingerprint- or a geometric representation of her fingerprint- was disseminated and disclosed to  Defendant's time-keeping vendor.   25.  Defendant never provided Plaintiff any written materials about its collection,  retention, destruction, use, or dissemination of her fingerprints.   26.  Defendant never obtained Plaintiff's written consent, or release as a condition of  employment, before collecting, storing, disseminating, or using her fingerprint.  4   27.  Defendant violated Plaintiffs privacy by capturing or collecting her unique  biometric identifiers and information, and sharing those identifiers and information with its time- keeping vendor, without her consent.   28.  Defendant diminished the value of Plaintiffs biometric identifiers and information  by storing them without publishing data retention and destruction policies required by the  Biometric Information Privacy Act.   29.  Based  on  Defendant's  violations  of the  informed-consent  and  data  destruction/retention publishing policies of the Biometric Information Privacy Act, Plaintiff  experiences emotional distress over whether Defendant is currently storing, or will eventually  dispose of, her biometric identifiers and information securely.   30.  Plaintiff also experiences emotional distress because she recognizes that she will  not learn of any data breach that compromises her biometric identifiers and information until after  that data breach has occurred.  31.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of hourly employees of Defendant in Illinois who  were required to scan their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock system without their  written consent ("the Class").   32.  Plaintiff and the Class are similar to one another because they were all subject to  the same allegedly illegal practices: being required to scan their fingerprints in Defendant's  biometric time clock system despite Defendant failing to adhere to the requirements of the  Biometric Information Privacy Act.   33.  The Class includes more than 40 members.   34.  As a result, the Class is so numerous that joining of all class members in one lawsuit  5  is not practical.   35.  The issues involved in this lawsuit present common questions of law and fact,  including: whether Defendant required the Class use their fingerprints to clock in and out during  shifts; whether the Class's fingerprints qualify as "biometric identifiers" or "biometric  information" under the Biometric Information Privacy Act; and whether Defendant complied with  the procedures of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.   36.  These common questions of law and fact predominate over the variations that may  exist between members of the Class, if any.   37.  Plaintiff, the members of the Class, and Defendant have a commonality of interest  in the subject matter of the lawsuit and the remedy sought.   38.  If individual actions were required to be brought by each member of the Class  injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity of actions, creating a hardship to the Class,  to the Court, and to Defendant.   39.  Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit and distribution of the common fund to which the Class are entitled.   40.  The books and records of Defendant are material to Plaintiffs case as they disclose  how and when Plaintiff and the Class scanned their fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time  clock system and what information Defendant provided Plaintiff and the Class about the collection,  retention, use, and dissemination of their biometric identifiers and information.   41.  Plaintiff and her counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.   42.  Plaintiff retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation.  6  w  ~ " "  w  -'  iL   43.   44.  46.  Defendant has "biometric information" from Plaintiff and the Class based on its  acquisition and retention of Plaintiff's and the Class's "biometric identifier[s]," as defined in the  previous paragraph.  4 7.  Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing or  collecting Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints without first informing them in writing that  Defendant was doing so.   48.  Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing or  collecting Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints without first informing them in writing of the  purpose of Defendant doing so and the length oftime Defendant would store and use Plaintiff's  and the Class's biometric identifiers and/or biometric information.   49.  Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing or  collecting Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints without first obtaining their written consent or  other release authorizing Defendant to capture or collect Plaintiff's and the Class's biometric  identifiers and/or biometric information.   50.  Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by possessing Plaintiff's  and the Class's fingerprints without creating a written policy, made available to the public,  7  establishing a retention schedule and destruction guidelines for its possession of biometric  identifiers and information.   51.  Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by disclosing or  otherwise disseminating Plaintiffs and the Class's fingerprints to Defendant's time-keeping  vendor without first obtaining their consent for that disclosure or dissemination.   52.  Defendant knew or should have known of the requirements of the Biometric  Information Privacy Act.   53.  As a result, Defendant's violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act were  reckless or, in the alternative, negligent.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for a judgment against Defendant as follows:  A.  Awarding liquidated monetary damages to Plaintiff and the Class for each violation  of the Biometric Information Privacy Act as provided by 740 ILCS 14/20(1)-(2);  B.  Enjoining Defendant from committing further violations of the Biometric  Information Privacy Act as authorized by 740 ILCS 14/20{4);  C.  Awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing and  prosecuting this action as provided by 740 ILCS 14/20(3); and  D.  Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just as provided  by 740 ILCS 14/20( 4).  COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION  BRENDA MASON, on behalf of  herself and all other persons similarly  situated, known and unknown,  Plaintiff,  v.  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  Violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act  (Class Action)  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of this Complaint.  Defendant is a "private entity" under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. 740  Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints qualify as "biometric identifier[s]" as  defined by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. 740 ILCS 14/10.  