IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

EVELYN HUNTER, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC,

a Pennsylvania corporation

Defendant,

Case No.:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Evelyn Hunter (“Hunter” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Class Action Complaint and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant Automated Health Systems, Inc. (“Automated”) to put a 

stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff’s and the putative Class members’

sensitive biometric data. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s own 

acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendant Automated is a national health services management company, 

administering large scale public health programs for state and local governments. Its headquarters 

are in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and it manages, or has managed, facilities located across the nation, 

including in Illinois.

2. When employees work at Automated, they are required to scan their fingerprint in 

its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or 

other identification cards.

FILED

3/1/2019 3:26 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2019CH02784

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 7/1/2019 10:30 AM - 10:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2102

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

12-Person Jury

2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:15
2

3. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the 

workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards—which can be 

changed or replaced if stolen or compromised—fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric 

identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible 

privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, 

employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

4. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois 

enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), specifically to 

regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens’ biometrics, such as fingerprints.

5. Despite this law, Automated disregards its employees’ statutorily protected privacy 

rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. 

Specifically, Automated has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not:

• Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose 

and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and 

used, as required by the BIPA; 

• Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently 

destroying Plaintiff’ and the Class’s fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor

• Receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, 

capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by the BIPA.

6. Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that Defendant’s conduct 

violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring Defendant to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and 

(iii) awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois who worked for 

Defendant through 2018. 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:16
3

8. Defendant Automated is a Pennsylvania corporation that has operated in Illinois, 

including in Schaumberg, Illinois. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209 because 

Defendant conducts business transactions in Illinois, and has committed tortious acts in Illinois.

10. Venue is proper in Cook County because Defendant operates in this County. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The Biometric Information Privacy Act. 

11. In the early 2000’s, major national corporations started using Chicago and other

locations in Illinois to test “new [consumer] applications of biometric-facilitated financial 

transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school 

cafeterias.” 740 ILCS 14/5(b). Given its relative infancy, an overwhelming portion of the public 

became weary of this then-growing, yet unregulated technology. See 740 ILCS 14/5.

12. In late 2007, a biometrics company called Pay By Touch—which provided major 

retailers throughout the State of Illinois with fingerprint scanners to facilitate consumer 

transactions—filed for bankruptcy. That bankruptcy was alarming to the Illinois Legislature 

because suddenly there was a serious risk that millions of fingerprint records—which, are unique 

biometric identifiers, can be linked to people’s sensitive financial and personal data—could now 

be sold, distributed, or otherwise shared through the bankruptcy proceedings without adequate 

protections for Illinois citizens. The bankruptcy also highlighted the fact that most consumers who 

had used that company’s fingerprint scanners were completely unaware that the scanners were not 

actually transmitting fingerprint data to the retailer who deployed the scanner, but rather to the 

now-bankrupt company, and that unique biometric identifiers could now be sold to unknown third 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:17
4

parties.

13. Recognizing the “very serious need [for] protections for the citizens of Illinois 

when it [came to their] biometric information,” Illinois enacted the BIPA in 2008. See Illinois 

House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276; 740 ILCS 14/5. 

14. The BIPA is an informed consent statute which achieves its goal by making it 

unlawful for a company to, among other things, “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, 

or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, 

unless it first: 

(1) informs the subject . . . in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric 

information is being collected or stored; 

(2) informs the subject . . . in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for 

which a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and 

used; and 

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric identifier or 

biometric information. 

740 ILCS 14/15(b).

15. BIPA specifically applies to employees who work in the State of Illinois. BIPA 

defines a “written release” specifically “in the context of employment [as] a release executed by 

an employee as a condition of employment.” 740 ILCS 14/10.

16. Biometric identifiers include retina and iris scans, voiceprints, scans of hand and 

face geometry, and—most importantly here—fingerprints. See 740 ILCS 14/10. Biometric 

information is separately defined to include any information based on an individual’s biometric 

identifier that is used to identify an individual. See id.

17. The BIPA also establishes standards for how employers must handle Illinois 

employees’ biometric identifiers and biometric information. See 740 ILCS 14/15(c)–(d). For 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:18
5

instance, the BIPA requires companies to develop and comply with a written policy—made 

available to the public—establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently 

destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting 

such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within three years of the individual’s last 

interaction with the company, whichever occurs first. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

18. Ultimately, the BIPA is simply an informed consent statute. Its narrowly tailored 

provisions place no absolute bar on the collection, sending, transmitting or communicating of 

biometric data. For example, the BIPA does not limit what kinds of biometric data may be 

collected, sent, transmitted, or stored. Nor does the BIPA limit to whom biometric data may be 

collected, sent, transmitted, or stored. The BIPA simply mandates that entities wishing to engage 

in that conduct must make proper disclosures and implement certain reasonable safeguards.

II. Automated Violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act. 

19. By the time the BIPA passed through the Illinois Legislature in mid-2008, many 

companies who had experimented with using biometric data as an authentication method stopped 

doing so, at least for a time. That is because Pay By Touch’s bankruptcy, described in Section I 

above, was widely publicized and brought attention to consumers’ discomfort with the use of their 

biometric data.

20. Unfortunately, Automated specifically failed to take note of the passage of the 

BIPA. Automated continues to collect, store, and use its employees’ biometric data in violation of 

the BIPA.

21. Specifically, when employees work at Automated, they are required to have their 

fingerprints scanned in order to enroll them in its fingerprint database.

22. Automated uses an employee time tracking system that requires employees to use 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:19
6

their fingerprints as a means of authentication. Unlike a traditional time clock, employees have to 

use their fingerprint to “punch” in to or out of work. 

23. Automated failed to inform its employees of the complete purposes for which it 

collects their sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all.

24. Automated similarly failed to provide its employees with a written, publicly 

available policy identifying its retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying its 

employees’ fingerprints when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their fingerprints is no 

longer relevant, as required by the BIPA. An employee who leaves the company does so without 

any knowledge of when their biometric identifiers will be removed from Automated databases—

or if they ever will be.

25. The Pay By Touch bankruptcy that catalyzed the passage of the BIPA highlights 

why conduct such as Automated —whose employees are aware that they are providing biometric 

identifiers but are not aware of to whom or the full extent of the reasons they are doing so—is so 

dangerous. That bankruptcy spurred Illinois citizens and legislators to realize a critical point: it is 

crucial for people to understand when providing biometric data who exactly is collecting it, who

it will be transmitted to, for what purposes, and for how long. But Automated disregards these 

obligations, and instead unlawfully collects, stores, and uses its employees’ biometric identifiers 

and information without proper consent. 

26. Ultimately, Automated disregards its employees’ statutorily protected privacy 

rights by violating the BIPA.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF

27. Plaintiff worked for Automated in Illinois, during 2017 and 2018.

28. As an employee, Automated required Plaintiff to scan Plaintiff’s fingerprint so that 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:20
7

it could use it as an authentication method to track time. Automated subsequently stored Plaintiff’s

fingerprint data in its databases.

29. Each time Plaintiff began and ended a workday, Automated required a scan of 

Plaintiff’s fingerprints. 

30. Automated never informed Plaintiff of the specific limited purposes or length of 

time for which it collected, stored, or used fingerprints. 

31. Similarly, Automated never informed Plaintiff of any biometric data retention 

policy it developed, nor whether it will ever permanently delete fingerprints.

32. Plaintiff never signed a written release allowing Automated to collect or store 

fingerprints.

33. Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful 

conditions created by Automated violations of the BIPA alleged herein.

34. Plaintiff now seeks liquidated damages under BIPA as compensation for the 

injuries Automated has caused.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

35. Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on 

behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:

All residents of the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints collected, captured, received, 

otherwise obtained, or disclosed by Automated while residing in Illinois.

The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge presiding over this action and 

members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, 

predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and 

its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely 

request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally 

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:21
8

adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’ counsel and Defendant’s counsel; 

and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.

36. Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this 

time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. Defendant has collected, captured, 

received, or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or biometric information from at least 

hundreds of employees who fall into the definition of the Class. Ultimately, the Class members 

will be easily identified through Defendant’s records.

37. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact 

common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any 

questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class 

include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

a) whether Defendant collected, captured, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff and the 

Class’ biometric identifiers or biometric information;

b) whether Defendant properly informed Plaintiff and the Class of its purposes for 

collecting, using, and storing their biometric identifiers or biometric 

information; 

c) whether Defendant obtained a written release (as defined in 740 ILCS 14/10) 

to collect, use, and store Plaintiff and the Class’ biometric identifiers or 

biometric information;

d) whether Defendant has sold, leased, traded, or otherwise profited from Plaintiff

and the Class’s biometric identifiers or biometric information;

e) whether Defendant developed a written policy, made available to the public, 

establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying 

biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for 

collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or 

within three years of their last interaction, whichever occurs first; 

f) whether Defendant complies with any such written policy (if one exists); and

g) whether Defendant used Plaintiff and the Class’ fingerprints to identify them.

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:22
9

38. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex 

litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and 

Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and their counsel are committed to 

vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial 

resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor their counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other

members of the Class.

39. Appropriateness: This class action is appropriate for certification because class 

proceedings are superior to all others available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy and joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. The damages suffered

by the individual members of the Class are likely to have been small relative to the burden and 

expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s wrongful 

conduct. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain 

effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such 

individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a class action because individual litigation would 

increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies 

presented in their Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties 

and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive 

supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and 

uniformity of decisions will be ensured.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

40. Plaintiff incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:23
10

41. The BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent from employees 

before acquiring their biometric data. Specifically, the BIPA makes it unlawful for any private 

entity to “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a 

customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, unless [the entity] first: (1) informs the 

subject . . . in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or 

stored; (2) informs the subject . . . in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which 

a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and used; and (3) receives 

a written release executed by the subject of the biometric identifier or biometric information....” 

740 ILCS 14/15(b) (emphasis added).

42. The BIPA also mandates that companies in possession of biometric data establish 

and maintain a satisfactory biometric data retention (and—importantly—deletion) policy. 

Specifically, those companies must: (i) make publicly available a written policy establishing a 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data (i.e., when the 

employment relationship ends); and (ii) actually adhere to that retention schedule and actually 

delete the biometric information. See 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

43. Unfortunately, Automated fails to comply with these BIPA mandates.

44. Automated qualifies as a “private entity” under the BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.

45. Plaintiff and the Class are individuals who had their “biometric identifiers” 

collected by Automated (in the form of their fingerprints), as explained in detail in Section II. See 

740 ILCS 14/10. 

46. Plaintiff and the Class’ biometric identifiers or information based on those 

biometric identifiers were used to identify them, constituting “biometric information” as defined 

by the BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:24
11

47. Automated violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3) by negligently failing to obtain written 

releases from Plaintiff and the Class before it collected, used, and stored their biometric identifiers 

and biometric information. 

48. Automated violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1) by negligently failing to inform Plaintiff

and the Class in writing that their biometric identifiers and biometric information were being 

collected and stored. 

49. Automated violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2) by negligently failing to inform Plaintiff

and the Class in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric 

identifiers or biometric information was being collected, stored, and used. 

50. Automated violated 740 ILCS 14/15(a) by negligently failing to publicly provide a 

retention schedule or guideline for permanently destroying its employees’ biometric identifiers 

and biometric information. 

51. By negligently collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff’s and the Class’ biometric 

identifiers and biometric information as described herein, Automated violated Plaintiff’s and the 

Class’ rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers or biometric information as set forth in the 

BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

52. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiff seek: (1) injunctive and equitable 

relief as is necessary to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendant

to comply with the BIPA’s requirements for the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers 

and biometric information as described herein; (2) liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation for 

each of Defendant’s negligent violations of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3) 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:25
12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff individually and for the Class, respectfully request that the Court 

enter an Order:

A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above, 

appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Class, and appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as Class 

Counsel;

B. Declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the BIPA; 

C. Awarding statutory damages of $1,000 for each of Defendant’s violations of the 

BIPA, pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); 

D. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the 

interests of the Class, including an Order requiring Defendant to collect, store, and use biometric 

identifiers or biometric information in compliance with the BIPA; 

F. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ 

fees;

G. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent 

allowable; and

H. Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. 

JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:26
13

Respectfully submitted,

Evelyn Hunter individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: March 4, 2019 By: /s/ David Fish 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

David Fish

dfish@fishlawfirm.com

Seth Matus

smatus@fishlawfirm.com

Kimberly Hilton

khilton@fishlawfirm.com

John Kunze

jkunze@fishlawfirm.com

THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123

Naperville, Illinois 60563

Tel: 630.355.7590

Fax: 630.778.0400

admin@fishlawfirm.com

Cook #44086

FILED DATE: 3/1/2019 3:26 PM 2019CH02784

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:27