Dixon v. Wash. & Jane Smith Cmty. — Beverly, Case No. 17 C 8033
| Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17 C 8033 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA DIXON, Plaintiff, v. THE WASHINGTON AND JANE SMITH COMMUNITY — BEVERLY d/b/a SMITH SENIOR LIVING, SMITH CROSSING, and SMITH VILLAGE, KEVIN MCGEE, MARTI JATIS, and KRONOS, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Cynthia Dixon, a former employee of Smith Senior Living (Smith), has sued Smith and Kronos, Inc. on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Dixon asserts claims for negligence and violation of Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) arising from Smith's requirement that its employees clock in and out of work by scanning their fingerprints onto a biometric timekeeping device (Kronos is the third-party supplier of the fingerprint scanners used by Smith). Dixon also has brought claims against Smith and two individuals1—Kevin McGee, the CEO of Smith Senior Living, and Marti Jatis, the Executive Director of Smith Village—for violating the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and for retaliatory discharge. Dixon initially filed this lawsuit inthe Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and Kronos removed the case to federal court in November 2017. Kronos and the Smith defendants have filed separate Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, and Dixon, for her part, has moved to remand the case to state court. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Dixon's motion to remand and Kronos's motion to dismiss. The Court grants the Smith defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part.
The Court takes the following facts from Dixon's complaint. Dixon worked at Smith Senior Living2 from February 20, 2017 until September 5, 2017. Smith requiredDixon to clock in and out of work by scanning her fingerprint, which Smith stored in a database after the first time it was scanned. Smith did not inform Dixon of the specific purpose or length of time for which her fingerprint was to be collected, stored, and / or used. Nor did Smith make available information about its biometric data retention policy (if it had such a policy) or other guidelines regarding the permanent destruction of the biometric information it possessed. Smith also neglected to obtain a written release from Dixon authorizing Smith to collect or store her fingerprints. Lastly, Dixon alleges that, in addition to collecting and storing her biometric information, Smith also "systematically disclosed" that information to Kronos, the out-of-state, third-party vendor of Smith's biometric time clocks, without informing her that it was doing so. Compl. ¶¶ 97, 30. For its part, Kronos did not obtain a written release from Dixon authorizing it to collect or store her fingerprints, nor did it inform her of the specific purpose or length of time for which it would store that information. Kronos also failed to provide information on its biometric data retention policy. As a result of these shortcomings, Dixon alleges that both Smith and Kronos "fail[ed] to implement reasonable procedural safeguards around the collection and use" of her biometric information, as well as that of other Smith employees. Id. ¶ 105.
During her employment with Smith Senior Living, Dixon typically worked about sixty hours per week, and she was paid approximately $16.44 per hour. In April 2017, Dixon was given a number of additional duties as a result of Smith's Environmental Services Manager being placed on a performance improvement plan. Dixon began receiving after-hours e-mails, text messages, and calls from her supervisors, AshleyCastro and Marti Jatis, as well as from employees on the Environmental Services team. Despite the increase in Dixon's on- and off-the-clock responsibilities, her title and pay did not change, though Castro and Chris August, Smith's Corporate Environmental and Safety Director, did agree to reimburse Dixon for her work-related cell phone charges.
In or around June 2017, Smith required Dixon to become trained and certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to prepare presentations for Smith's Emergency Preparedness Committee. Dixon estimates that she worked approximately 100 to 200 hours of unpaid overtime to complete the FEMA training and certification and prepare the Committee presentations.
In July 2017, Smith demoted the Environmental Services Manager who had been on the performance improvement plan and assigned his duties to Dixon. These additional duties included scheduling and supervising the Environmental Services team. As a result—and because Smith designated Dixon as the person other employees should call if they encountered a problem after business hours—Dixon frequently received and responded to calls, e-mails, and text messages from her supervisor and members of the Environmental Services team after hours. Prior to August 30, 2017, Dixon informed her supervisors of the work she was performing, but not being paid for, after the end of her shift. Her supervisors "approved of this time and guaranteed reimbursement." Id. ¶ 118.
On August 30, 2017, Smith formally offered Dixon the Environmental Services Manager job—a salaried position that paid $43,000 a year. The next day, Dixon sent an e-mail to Castro and Jatis in which she challenged whether she could be properly classified as an "exempt" employee if she was paid a $43,000-a-year salary. OnSeptember 1, Dixon had a meeting with her supervisor (presumably Castro), Marti Jatis, and Karen Jellema from human resources. Dixon was told that she would receive answers to her questions about the position and her salary on September 5, after the holiday weekend. On September 5, however, Smith terminated Dixon's employment. Dixon was told that her department was being restructured and that she was being terminated for twice working past the end of her shift. Jellema also told Dixon that Dixon was "wrong" regarding the salary threshold for "exempt" employees. Compl. ¶ 71. Smith never paid Dixon for the estimated 100 to 200 hours of overtime she worked on her FEMA and other emergency preparedness duties, nor did it pay her for the additional overtime she worked responding to after-hours communications from supervisors and Environmental Services staff. Moreover, although Smith previously had reimbursed Dixon for cell phone charges from April 2017 through June 2017, Dixon did not receive any reimbursement for the work-related cell phone expenses she incurred from July 2017 until her termination in September 2017.
In September 2017, Dixon filed suit against Smith Senior Living, Smith Crossing, Smith Village,3 McGee, Jatis, and Kronos in the Circuit Court of Cook County. She asserted the following six claims in her complaint:
See Compl. at 17-24. With the consent of the Smith defendants, Kronos removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) in November 2017. In December 2017, Kronos and the Smith defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Kronos argues that the Court should dismiss the BIPA claim because Dixon has not alleged an injury sufficient to make her a person "aggrieved" under the Act. Kronos also has moved to strike Dixon's request for liquidated damages under BIPA. Kronos further contends that Dixon has failed to state a claim for negligence. Like Kronos, the Smith defendants argue that Dixon has not sufficiently alleged that she is a person aggrieved under BIPA and that she has not alleged an injury that would support a common law negligence claim. Additionally, they contend that Smith Village and Smith Crossing should be dismissed because Dixon does not allege that she worked for Smith Village or Smith Crossing, nor does she allege any facts that would render either entity liable for the violations alleged in the complaint. The Smith defendants likewise argue for dismissal of the claims against McGee and Jatis on the ground that Dixon has not alleged facts sufficient to establish their individual liability, as employers, for the IMWL and IWPCA violations alleged. Lastly, Smith contends that Dixon's IMWL, IWPCA, and retaliatory discharge claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In response, Dixon has filed a motion to remand the case to state court. According to Dixon, remand is warranted on the ground that the defendants' arguments for dismissal cast doubt on the existence of Article III standing and, consequently, on the Court's jurisdiction over the case.
The Court will address Dixon's motion to remand before proceeding to the merits of the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Dixon contends that, by arguing in their motions to dismiss that she has not alleged an injury sufficient to make her a person aggrieved under BIPA, the defendants have effectively asserted that she does not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Because Article III standing is a necessary component of federal jurisdiction—and because it is the burden of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial