EXHIBIT A 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:9
A lb. 

;_:_t CT Corporation Service of Process 

Transmittal 

04/02/2020 

CT Log Number 537486783 

TO: STEVEN HERRING 

Gerresheimer, Inc. 

537 CRYSTAL AVE 

VINELAND, NJ 08360-3238 

RE: Process Served in Illinois 

FOR: Gerresheimer Glass Inc. (Domestic State: DE) 

ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY, etc., Pltf. vs. Gerresheimer Glass Inc., Dft. 

None Specified 

Case # 2020CH03460 

C T Corporation System, Chicago, IL 

By Regular Mail on 04/02/2020 postmarked: "Not Post Marked" 

Illinois 

None Specified 

None Specified 

CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 04/02/2020, Expected Purge Date: 

04/07/2020 

Image SOP 

Email Notification, STEVEN HERRING steven.herring@gerresheimer.com 

Email Notification, Donald Norcross d.norcross@gerresheimer.com 

Email Notification, CRAIG CALLOWAY c.calloway@gerresheimer.com 

TITLE OF ACTION: 

DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: 

COURT/AGENCY: 

ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED: 

DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE: 

JURISDICTION SERVED: 

APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: 

ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S): 

ACTION ITEMS: 

SIGNED: C T Corporation System 

ADDRESS: 208 LaSalle Ave 

Suite 814 

Chicago, IL 60604 

For Questions: 866-539-8692 

CorporationTeam@wolterskluwer.com 

Page 1 of 1 / DP 

Information displayed on this transmittal is for CT 

Corporation's record keeping purposes only and is provided to 

the recipient for quick reference. This information does not 

constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the 

amount of damages, the answer date, or any information 

contained in the documents themselves. Recipient is 

responsible for interpreting said documents and for taking 

appropriate action. Signatures on certified mail receipts 

confirm receipt of package only, not contents. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:10
II 

• 

US POSTAGE . FEES PAID . 062S0D073.917S OZ FIRST.CUSE MAIL FLATS RATE FROM 80563 

:RETAIL 

1 c I 1 

USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL® 

The Fish Law Firm, P.C. 

200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 

Naperville IL 60563 

t 

CO1CII 

SHIP CT Oorporation System TO: 

39S. Lp Salle St., 

phicqgcOL 60604 ? 

' 

• . 

. 

.111 411 111141.1ululiMuli1101114111..11.01111111..1111.1 

., 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:11
Notice and Acknowledgment of 

Receipt of Summons and Complaint (10/12/18) CCG 0063 A 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

Plaintiff(s) 

VS. 

Case No. 2020CH03460 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

Defendant(s) 

Defendant(s) 

Amount Claimed: $ 

NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS AND 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. COMPLAINT 

do CT Corporation System 208 S. LaSalle St., Suit 814 

To: Address: 

(Name) 

Chicago City: State: zip: 60604 IL 

The enclosed summons and complaint are served pursuant to section 2-213 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure. 

You must complete the acknowledgment part of this form and return one copy of the completed 

form to the sender within 30 * days. 

You must sign and date the acknowledgment. If you are served on behalf of a corporation, 

unincorporated association (including a partnership), or other entity, you must indicate under your 

signature your relationship to that entity. If you are served on behalf of another person and you are 

authorized to receive process, you must indicate under your signature your authority. 

If you do not complete and return the form to the sender within 30 * days, you (or the 

party on whose behalf you are being served) may be served a summons and complaint in any other 

manner permitted by law. 

If you do complete and return this form, you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) 

must answer the complaint within 60 ** days. If you fail to do so, judgment by default 

will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this riQticc. and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and 

1 

complaint will have been mailed on. 03/27/2020 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourtorg 

Page 1 of 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:12
Notice and Acknowledgment of 

Receipt of Summons and Complaint (10/12/18) CCG 0063 B 

E-fding is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To 

e-file, you must first create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile. 

illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htmto learn more and to select a service provider. If 

you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/ 

gethelp. asp. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I received a copy of the summons and of the complaint in 

the above captioned matter at 

<Please print or type) 

Name: 

Address: 

City: State: Zip: 

Email: 

Relationship to Entity/Authority to Receive Service of Process: 

(Not applicable if your are the named Defendant or Respondent.) 

Dated: 

Signature 

* (ro be completed by the person sending the notice.) Date for return of waiver must be at least 30 days from the date 

on which the request is sent, or 60 days if the defendant is addressed outside the United States. 

** go be completed by the person sending the notice.) Date for answering complaint must be at least 60 days from the 

date on which the request is sent, or 90 days if the defendant is addressed outside the United States. 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountycletkofcourt.org 

Page 2 of 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:13
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

et rn ate: No return date scheduled 

Hearing Date: 7/22/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM 

Courtroom Number: 2402 

Location: District 1 Court 

Cook County, IL 

2120 - Served 2121 - Served 

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served 

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail 

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication 

_ 1:N117HE .CIRCUIT_COURT_OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

^ 

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A 

FILED 

3/24/2020 1:11 PM 

DOROTHY BROWN 

CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

8946364 

(Name all parties) 

V. 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

Case No. 

SUMMONS 0 ALIAS SUMMONS 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

To each Defendant: do CT Corporation System, 208 S. LaSalle St., Suit 814, Chicago, IL 60604 

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty 

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or 

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.orgto initiate 

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk's Office locations. Please refer to 

the last page of this document for location information. 

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint. 

To the Officer: 

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date. 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org 

Page 1 of 3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:14
Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B 

FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first 

create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm 

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http:// 

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp,or talk with your local circuit clerk's office. 

Witness: 

3/24/2020 1:11 PM DOROTHY BROWN 

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court 

Address: 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 

City:Naperville Date of Service: 

(To be inserted by officer on copy-left-with 

State: IL zip: 60563 Defendant or other person): 

Telephone: 630-355-7590 

Primary Email: docketing@fishlawfirm.com 

DOROTHY BROWN 

CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

Atty. No.: 44086 

The Fish Law Firm, P.C. Atty Name: 

Atty. for: Plaintiff 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcour t.org 

Page 2 of 3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:15
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS 

FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

Daley Center Divisions/Departments 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington 

Chicago, IL 60602 

District 2 - Skokie 

5600 Old Orchard Rd 

Skokie, IL 60077 

District 3 - Rolling Meadows 

2121 Euclid 

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 

4 - Maywood 

1500 Maybrook Ave 

Maywood, IL 60153 

District 5 - Bridgeview 

10220 S 76th Ave 

Bridgeview, IL 60455 

District 6 - Markham 

16501 S Kedzie Pkwy 

Markham, IL 60428 

Domestic Violence Court 

555 W Harrison 

Chicago, IL 60607 

Juvenile Center Building 

2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Criminal Court Building 

2650 S California Ave, Rm 526 

Chicago, IL 60608 

Civil Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 601 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Chancery Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 802 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Domestic Relations Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 802 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Civil Appeals 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 801 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Criminal Department 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1006 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

County Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1202 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Probate Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1202 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

" Law Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 801 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Traffic Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Lower Level 

• Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org 

• Page 3 of 3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:16
FILED 

3/24/2020 1:11 PM 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

8946364 

Case No.: 

'Return Date: No return date scheduled 

Hearing Date: 7/22/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM 

Courtroom Number: 2402 

Location: District 1 Court 

Cook County, IL 

FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020

CH03460 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

GERRESHEIMER GLASS INC., 

Defendant. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Alexsia Bradley ("Alexsia" or "Plaintiff') brings this Class Action Complaint 

against Defendant Gerresheimer Glass Inc., (Gerresheimer" or "Defendant") to put a stop to its 

unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive 

biometric data. Plaintiff, for Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, alleges as follows upon personal 

knowledge as to Plaintiffs own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information 

and belief. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Gerresheimer is a manufacturer of specialty glass and plastic products with a 

location in Chicago Heights, Illinois. 

2. When employees first begin their jobs at Gerresheimer, 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. 

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 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:17
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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

identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes enyloyees 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, Gerresheimer disregarded its employees' statutorily protected 

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

BIPA. Specifically, Gerresheimer 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 Plaintiffs 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. 

8. Defendant Gerresheimer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Vineland, New Jersey. 

2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:18
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020

CH03460 

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 have committed tortious acts in Illinois. 

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

County and "resides" in Cook County within the meaning of 735 ILCS § 5/2-102(a). 

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 biometrios 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 

parties. 

3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:19
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:20
FILED DATE 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020

CH03460 

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. Gerresheimer 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, Gerresheimer failed to take note of the passage of the BIPA. 

Gerresheimer continued to collect, store, and use its employees' biometric data in violation of the 

BIPA. 

21. Specifically, when employees worked at Gerresheimer, they are required to have 

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

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

use their fingerprints as a means of authentication. Unlike a traditional timec lock, employees have 

5 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:21
FILED DATE: 3/24/20201:11 PM 2020CH03460 

to use their fingerprint to "punch" in to or out of work. 

23. Gerresheimer 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. Gerresheimer 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 Gerresheimer 

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 Gerresheimer's —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 Gerresheimer disregards 

these obligations, and instead unlawfully collects, stores, and uses its employees' biometric 

identifiers and information without proper consent. 

26. Ultimately, Gerresheimer disregards its emploees' statutorily protected privacy 

rights by violating the BIPA. 

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF 

27. Plaintiff worked for Gerresheimer in Illinois through 2019. 

28. As an employee, Gerresheimer required Plaintiff to scan Plaintiff's fingerprint so 

that it could use it as an authentication method to track time. Gerresheimer subsequently stored 

6 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:22
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

Plaintiffs fingerprint data in its databases. 

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

Plaintiffs fingerprints. 

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

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

31. Similarly, Gerresheimer 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 Gerresheimer to collect or store 

fingerprints. 

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

conditions created by Gerresheimer violations of the BIPA alleged herein. 

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

injuries Gerresheimer has caused. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

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

behalf of Plaintiff 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 Defendant 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) Gerresheimer, Gerresheimer'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 

adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel; 

7 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:23
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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. Gerresheimer 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's 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; 

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

whether Defendant used Plaintiff and the Class' fingerprints to identify them. 

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

8 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:24
FILED 

DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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

litigation and class actions. Plaintiff have 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 Gerresheimer's 

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

to obtain effective relief from Gerresheimer'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 incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 

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

9 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:25
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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, Gerresheimer fails to comply with these BIPA mandates. 

44. Gerresheimer 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 Gerresheimer (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. 

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

10 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:26
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

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

biometric information. 

48. Gerresheimer violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1) by failing to inform Plaintiff and the 

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

stored. 

49. Gerresheimer violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2) by 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. Gerresheimer violated 740 ILCS 14/15(a) by failing to publicly provide a,retention 

schedule or guideline for permanently destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and 

biometric information. 

51. By collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff's and the Class' biometric identifiers and 

biometric information as described herein, Gerresheimer 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's 

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 for each of Defendant's 

violations of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20; and (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 

and expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3). 

11 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 19 of 46 PageID #:27
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and 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 their counsel as Class Counsel; 

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

C. Awarding statutory damages for each of Defendant's violations of the BIPA, 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20; 

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. 

Dated: March 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Alexsia Bradley, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

By: /s/ Mara Baltabols 

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys 

David Fish 

dfishfishlawfirm.com 

Mara Baltabols 

mara(a)fishlawfirm.com 

12 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 20 of 46 PageID #:28
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 

Naperville, Illinois 60563 

Tel: 630.355.7590 

Fax: 630.778.0400 

Cook Cnty #: 44086 

docketingRfishlawfirm.com 

13 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 21 of 46 PageID #:29
Notice and Acknowledgment of 

Receipt of Summons and Complaint (10/12/18) CCG 0063 A 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

Plaintiff(s) 

VS. 

Case No. 2020CH03460 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

Defendant(s) 

Defendant(s) 

Amount Claimed: $ 

NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS AND 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. COMPLAINT 

c/o CT Corporation System 208 S. LaSalle St., Suit 814 

To: Address: 

(Name) 

City: Chicago State: IL Zip: 60604 

The enclosed summons and complaint are served pursuant to section 2-213 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure. 

You must complete the acknowledgment part of this form and return one copy of the completed 

form to the sender within 30 * days. 

You must sign and date the acknowledgment. If you are served on behalf of a corporation, 

unincorporated association (including a partnership), or other entity, you must indicate under your 

signature your relationship to that entity. If you are served on behalf of another person and you are 

authorized to receive process, you must indicate under your signature your authority. 

If you do not complete and return the form to the sender within 30 * days, you (or the 

party on whose behalf you are being served) may be served a surainons and complaint in any other 

manner permitted by law. 

If you do complete and return this form, you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) 

must answer the complaint within 60 ** days. If you fail to do so, judgment by default 

will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this ricItice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and 

• 

complaint will have been mailed on. 03/27/2020 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org 

Page 1 of 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 22 of 46 PageID #:30
Notice and Acknowledgment of 

Receipt of Summons and Complaint (10/12/18) CCG 0063 B 

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To 

e-file, you must first create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile. 

illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm to learn more and to select a service provider. If 

you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/ 

gethelp.asp. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I received a copy of the summons and of the complaint in 

the above captioned matter at 

(Please print or type) 

Name: 

Address: 

City: State: Zip: 

Email: 

Relationship to Entity/Authority to Receive Service of Process: 

(Not applicable if your are the named Defendant or Respondent.) 

Dated: 

Signature 

* (To be completed by the person sending the notice.) Date for return of waiver must be at least 30 days from the date 

on which the request is sent, or 60 days if the defendant is addressed outside the United States. 

** go be completed by the person sending the notice) Date for answering complaint must be at least 60 days from the 

date on which the request is sent, or 90 days if the defendant is addressed outside the United States. 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountycletkofcourt.org 

Page 2 of 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 23 of 46 PageID #:31
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

o 

Return Date: No return date scheduled 

Hearing Date: 7/22/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM 

Courtroom Number: 2402 

Location: District 1 Court 

Cook County, IL 

2120 - Served 2121 - Served 

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served 

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail 

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication 

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

(Name all parties) 

Case No. 

V. 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

71 SUMMONS 0 ALIAS SUMMONS 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

To each Defendant: do CT Corporation System, 208 S. LaSalle St., Suit 814, Chicago, IL 60604 

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty 

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or 

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.orgto initiate 

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk's Office locations. Please refer to 

the last page of this document for location information. 

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint. 

To the Officer: 

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date. 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcour t.org 

Page 1 of 3 

FILED 

3/24/2020 1:11 PM 

DOROTHY BROWN 

CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

8946364 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 24 of 46 PageID #:32
Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B 

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first 

create an account with an e-fifing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm 

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http:// 

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp,or talk with your local circuit clerk's office. 

44086 Atty. No.: 

The Fish Law Firm, P.C. Ally Name: 

Atty. for: 

Witness: 

3/24/2020 1:11 PM DOROTHY BROWN 

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court 

Plaintiff 

Address: 200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123 

Date of Service: city:Naperville 

(To be inserceTzl by officer on copy left with 

State: IL zip: 60563 Defendant or other person): 

Telephone: 630-355-7590 

Primary Email: docketing@fishlawfirm.com 

DOROTHY BROWN 

CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org 

Page 2 of 3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 25 of 46 PageID #:33
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS 

FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 1:11 PM 2020CH03460 

Daley Center Divisions/Departments 

Civil Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 601 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Chancery Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 802 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington 

Chicago, IL 60602 

District 2 - Skokie 

5600 Old Orchard Rd 

Skokie, IL 60077 

District 3 - Rolling Meadows 

2121 Euclid 

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 

District 4 --Maywood 

1500 Maybrook Ave 

Maywood, IL 60153 

District 5 - Bridgeview 

10220 S 76th Ave 

Bridgeview, IL 60455 

District 6 - Markham 

16501 S Kedzie Pkwy 

Markham, IL 60428 

Domestic Violence Court 

555 W Harrison 

Chicago, IL 60607 

Juvenile Center Building 

2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Criminal Court Building 

2650 S California Ave, Rm 526 

Chicago, IL 60608 

Domestic Relations Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 802 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Civil Appeals 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 801 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Criminal Department 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1006 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

County Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1202 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Probate Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 1202 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Law Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Rm 801 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Traffic Division 

Richard J Daley Center 

50 W Washington, Lower Level 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org 

Page 3 of 3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 26 of 46 PageID #:34
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Return Date: No return date scheduled 

Hearing Date: 7/22/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM 

Courtroom Number: 2402 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

Location: District 1 Court COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION 

Cook County, IL 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

V. 

GERRESHIMER GLASS INC. 

Defendant. 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

To: GERRESHIMER GLASS INC., do CT Corporation System 

208 S. LaSalle St., Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604 

Case No.: 2020CH03460 

FILED 

3/24/2020 2:51 PM 

DOROTHY BROWN 

CIRCUIT CLERK 

COOK COUNTY, IL 

2020CH03460 

8948075 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2, 2020 at 10:00 am, or as soon thereafter as counsel 

can be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Judge Presiding in Courtroom 2402 of the 

Richard J. Daley Center, 50 West Washington, Chicago, Illinois to present the Plaintiff's Motion 

for Class Certification and Request for Discovery on Certification Issues, a copy of which is 

attached hereto and hereby served upon you. 

Dated: March 24, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexsia Bradley, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated. 

By: /s/ Mara Baltabols 

One of its Attorneys 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on March 24, 2020 before 5:00 p.m., 

he caused the foregoing notice and response to be served on the above party by U.S. Mail. 

By: /s/ Mara Baltabols 

One of Plaintiffs Attorneys 

THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 

200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123 

Naperville, IL 60563 

(630) 355-7590 

admin@fishlawfirm.com 

Cook County Atty No. 44086 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 27 of 46 PageID #:35
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Return Date: No return date scheduled 

Hearing Date: 7/22/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM 

Courtroom Number: 2402 

Location: District 1 Court FILED 

3/24/2020 2:51 PM Cook County, IL 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION COIROCKUICTOCULNERK IL 

2020CH03460 

8948075 

Case No.: 2020CH03460 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY ON CERTIFICATION ISSUES 

Plaintiff Alexsia Bradley ("Bradley" or "Plaintiff") alleges that Defendant Gerresheimer 

Glass, Inc. ("Gerresheimer" or "Defendant") systematically violated the Biometric Information 

Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. This case is well-suited for class certification under 

735 ILCS 5/2-801. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of hundreds of former 

and current similarly-situated employees who worked for Defendant that had their fingerprints 

unlawfully collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, or disclosed by Defendant during the 

applicable statutory period in violation of BIPA. The question of liability is a legal question that 

can be answered in one fell swoop. As Plaintiff's claims, and the claims of similarly-situated 

individuals, all arise from Defendant's uniform policies and practices, they satisfy the requirement 

of 735 ILCS 5/2-801 and should be certified. 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

GERRESHEIMER GLASS INC., 

Defendant. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 28 of 46 PageID #:36
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020

C

H03460 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

Major national corporations started using locations in Illinois in the early 2000s 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(c). Given its 

relative infancy, an overwhelming portion of the public became wary of this then-growing, yet 

unregulated, technology. See 740 ILCS 14/5. 

The Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. was enacted in 2008, 

arising from concerns that these experimental uses of finger-scan technologies created a "very 

serious need of protections for the citizens of Illinois when it comes to biometric information." 

Illinois House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a private 

entity 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). 

Although there may be benefits with using biometrics in the workplace, there are also 

serious risks. Unlike ID badges— which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised — 

fingerprints are a unique, permanent biometric identifier associated with each individual. These 

biometrics are biologically unique to the individual; once compromised, the individual has no 

means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, or other unlawful or improper use 

of this information. This exposes individuals to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, 

2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 29 of 46 PageID #:37
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed — as in the recent Equifax, Home 

Depot, Google+ and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data breaches— individuals have no means to 

prevent the misappropriation and theft of their proprietary biometric makeup. Recognizing the 

need to protect its citizens from harms like these, Illinois enacted BIPA specifically to regulate the 

collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers 

and information. 

A. Factual Allegations 

Plaintiff filed this class action against Defendant to redress Defendant's unlawful 

collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Illinois employees' biometric information under BIPA. 

In this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff provided detailed allegations that Illinois employees who 

use Defendant's technology as a condition of employment were, and continue to be, universally 

required to scan their fingerprints for enrollment in an employee database(s) as a requirement of 

their employment, but are not: (1) informed in writing of the purpose(s) and length of time for 

which fingerprint data is being collected, stored, used, and disseminated by Defendant; (2) 

provided a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines for permanent destruction of the 

biometric data by Defendant; and (3) provided (nor did it execute) a written release for Defendant, 

as required by BIPA. See Compl. 11120-24, 27-33.41-52. 

Plaintiff was required to use Defendant's biometric device during her work for Defendant. 

Id. 11112,21. As a condition of employment, Plaintiff was required to scan her fingerprints each time 

she clocked in or out of work. Id. Plaintiff was required to scan her fingerprints each time they 

accessed Defendant's biometric device. Id. However, Defendant failed and continue to fail to 

inform Illinois employees, including Plaintiff, of the extent of the purposes for which it collects 

individuals' sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed. Id. 75, 23-24. Defendant 

3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 30 of 46 PageID #:38
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

similarly failed to provide Illinois employees, including Plaintiff, with a written, publicly available 

policy identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying individuals' 

fingerprint data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their fingerprint is no longer 

relevant, as required by BIPA. Id. 1123-24, 42-43. Illinois employees, including Plaintiff, have no 

knowledge when they leave the company of when — if ever — their biometric identifiers will be 

removed from Defendant's database(s). Id. 

Illinois workers are not told what might happen to their biometric data if and when 

Defendant merges with another company or, worse, if and when Defendant's entire businesses 

fold. Since Defendant neither publishes a BIPA-mandated data retention policy nor disclose the 

purposes for its collection of biometric data, Illinois employees, including Plaintiff, have no idea 

whether Defendant sells, discloses, re-discloses, or otherwise disseminates their biometric data. 

Nor are Illinois employees told to whom Defendant currently discloses their biometric data or what 

might happen to their biometric data in the event of a merger or a bankruptcy. Finally, Defendant 

never secured a written release executed by any of Illinois' employees, including Plaintiff, 

permitting it to collect, store, use, and disseminate employees' biometric data, as required by 

BIPA. Id. ¶¶ 5, 32, 41-43. 

Accordingly, Defendant's practices violated BIPA. As a result of Defendant's violations, 

Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals were subject to Defendant's common and uniform 

policies and practices and were victims of its scheme to unlawfully collect, store, use, and 

disseminate Illinois employees' biometric data in direct violation of BIPA. Plaintiff now seeks 

class certification for the following similarly-situated individuals, defined as: 

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

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

4 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 31 of 46 PageID #:39
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Given Defendant's standard practices defined above and the straightforward and common 

legal questions presented in this case, Plaintiff now moves for class certification. Notably, this 

motion is being filed shortly after the Complaint was filed and before Defendant has responded. 

For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's request should be granted. 

II. STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 

"The basic purpose of a class action is the efficiency and economy of litigation." CE Design 

Ltd v. C & T Pizza, Inc., 2015 IL App. (1st) 131465, 'II 9 (Ill. App. Ct. May 8, 2015) (citing Miner 

v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill. 2d 7, 14 (1981)). "In determining whether to certify a proposed class, the 

trial court accepts the allegations of the complaint as true and should err in favor of maintaining 

class certification." CE Design Ltd, 2015 IL App. (1st) 131465, 11 9 (citing Ramirez v. Midway 

Moving & Storage, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 51, 53 (2007)). Under Section 2801 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure, a class may be certified if the following four requirements are met: 

(1) the class is so numerous that a joinder of all members is impracticable; 

(2) there are questions of fact or law common to the class that predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual members; 

(3) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the 

class; and 

(4) the class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of the controversy. 

See Smith v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 223 Ill. 2d 441, 447 (2006) (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-801). 

Notably, "[a] trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a proposed class meets the 

requirements for class certification." CE Design Ltd, 2015 IL App. (1st) 131465, ¶ 9 (citing 

Ramirez, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 53). Here, the allegations and facts in this case amply demonstrate 

that the four certification factors are met. 

5 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 32 of 46 PageID #:40
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

III. ARGUMENT 

Plaintiff's claims here are especially suited for class certification because Defendant treated 

all Illinois employees identically for the purposes of applying BIPA. All of the putative class 

members in this case were uniformly subjected to the same illegal and unlawful collection, storage, 

use, and dissemination of their biometric data that was required as a condition of employment 

throughout the class period. Plaintiff meets each of the statutory requirements for maintenance of 

this suit as a class action. Thus, the class action device is ideally suited and is far superior to 

burdening the Court with many individual lawsuits to address the same issues, undertake the same 

discovery, and rely on the same testimony. 

A. The Class Is So Numerous That Joinder of All Members Is 

Impracticable. 

Numerosity is not dependent on a plaintiff setting forth a precise number of class members 

or a listing of their names. See Cruz v. Unilock Chicago, 383 Ill. App. 3d 752, 771 (2d Dist. 2008) 

("Of course, plaintiffs need not demonstrate a precise figure for the class size, because a goodfaith, non-speculative estimate will suffice; rather, plaintiffs need demonstrate only that the class 

is sufficiently numerous to make joinder of all of the members impracticable.") (internal citations 

omitted); Hayna v. Arby's, Inc., 99 III. App. 3d 700, 710-11 (1st Dist. 1981) ("It is not necessary 

that the class representative name the specific individuals who are possibly members of the 

class."). Courts in Illinois generally find numerosity when the class is comprised of at least 40 

members. See Wood River Area Dev. Corp. v. Germania Fed. Say. Loan Ass 'n, 198 Ill. App. 3d 

445, 450 (5th Dist. 1990). 

In the present case, there can be no serious dispute that Plaintiff meets the numerosity 

requirement as Defendant employs hundreds of Illinois workers who were subjected to the same 

policy. The class of potential plaintiffs is sufficiently large to make joinder impracticable. As a 

6 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 33 of 46 PageID #:41
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

result of Defendant's violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals were 

subjected to Defendant's common and uniform policies and practices and were victims of 

Defendant's scheme to unlawfully collect, store, use, and disseminate their extremely personal 

and private biometric data in direct violation of BIPA. The precise number in the class cannot be 

determined until discovery records are obtained from Defendant. Nevertheless, class membership 

can be easily determined by reviewing Defendant's records and those of its customers. See e.g., 

ChuItem v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 401 Ill. App. 3d 226, 233 (1st Dist. 2010) (reversing Circuit Court's 

denial of class certification and holding that class was certifiable over Defendant's objection that 

"the proposed class was not ascertainable, because the process of reviewing Defendant's 

transaction files to determine class membership would be burdensome"). Once Defendant's 

records are obtained, the Court will know the precise number of persons affected. 

Further, recognizing the need to protect its citizens from harms such as identity theft, 

Illinois enacted BIPA specifically to regulate the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, 

retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information. A class action would help 

ensure that Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated individuals have a means of redress against 

Defendant for its widespread violations of BIPA. 

B. Common Questions Of Law And Fact Exist That Predominate Over 

Any Questions Solely Affecting Individual Members Of The Class. 

Courts analyze commonality and predominance under Section 2-801 by identifying the 

substantive issues that will control the outcome of the case. See Bemis v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 

407 Ill. App. 3d 1164, 1167 (5th Dist. 2011); Cruz, 383 Ill. App. 3d at 773. The question then 

becomes whether those issues will predominate and whether they are common to the class, 

meaning that "favorable adjudication of the claims of the named plaintiffs will establish a right of 

recovery in other class members." Id. at 773. As stated by the Court of Appeals, the question is 

7 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 34 of 46 PageID #:42
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

will "common . . . issues be the subject of the majority of the efforts of the litigants and the 

court[?]" Bemis, 407 Ill. App. 3d at 1168. The answer here is "yes." Common questions of law or 

fact are typically found to exist when "the claims of the individual class members are based upon 

the common application of a statute or where the proposed class members are aggrieved by the 

same or similar conduct or a pattern of conduct." Bueker v. Madison Cty., 2016 IL App (5th) 

150282, 15 27; McCarthy v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 230 Ill. App. 3d 628, 634 (1st Dist. 

1992). 

At the heart of this litigation is Defendant's culpable conduct under BIPA. The issues are 

simple and straightforward legal questions that plainly lend themselves to class-wide resolution. 

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregarded the 

statutorily-protected privacy rights of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals and 

unlawfully collected, stored, used, and disseminated their biometric data in direct violation of 

BIPA. Specifically, Defendant have violated and continues to violate BIPA because it failed and 

continues to fail to: (1) inform Plaintiff or the putative class in writing of the specific purpose(s) 

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

as required by BIPA; (2) provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for 

permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the putative class' fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and 

(3) receive a written release from Plaintiff or the putative class to collect, capture, use, otherwise 

obtain or disseminate their fingerprints, as required by BIPA. Defendant treated the entire proposed 

class in precisely the same manner, resulting in identical violations of BIPA. These common 

practices create common issues of law and fact. In fact, the legality of Defendant's collection, 

storage, use, and dissemination of Illinois employees' biometric data is the focus of this litigation. 

8 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 35 of 46 PageID #:43
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Indeed, once this Court determines whether Defendant's practices of collecting, storing, 

and using individuals' biometric data without adhering to the specific requirements of BIPA 

constitutes violations thereof, liability for the claims of class members will be determined in one 

stroke. The material facts and issues of law are substantially the same for the members of the class, 

and therefore these common issues could be tried such that proof as to one claimant would be 

proof as to all members of the class. This alone establishes predominance. The only remaining 

questions will be whether Defendant's violations caused members of the class to suffer damages 

and the proper measure of damages and injunctive relief, which in and of themselves are questions 

common to the class. Accordingly, a favorable adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims in this case 

will establish a right of recovery to all other class members, and thus the commonality and 

predominance requirements weigh in favor of certification of the class. 

C. The Named Plaintiff And Class Counsel Are Adequate Representatives Of 

The Class. 

When evaluating adequacy, courts look to whether the named plaintiff has the same 

interests as those of the class and whether she or she will fairly represent them. See CE Design 

Ltd., 2015 IL App. (1st) 131465, ¶ 16. In this case, Plaintiff's interest arises from statute. The class 

representative is a member of the proposed class and will fairly and adequately protect the class' 

interests. Plaintiff, as a condition of employment, was required to have her fingerprints scanned 

by one of Defendant's biometric devices. Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's fingerprints in 

its database(s). Plaintiff has never been informed of the specific limited purposes (if any) or length 

of time for which Defendant collected, stored, used, or disseminated her biometric data. Compl. 

115,30,48. Plaintiff has never been informed of any biometric data retention policy developed by 

Defendant, nor have she ever been informed whether Defendant will ever permanently delete her 

fingerprints. Finally, Plaintiff has never been provided, nor did she ever sign, a written release 

9 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 36 of 46 PageID #:44
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:

51 PM 2020C

H03460 

allowing Defendant to collect, store, use, or disseminate her fingerprints. Thus, Plaintiff was a 

victim of the same uniform policies and practices as the individuals she seeks to represent and is 

not seeking any relief that is potentially antagonistic to other members of the class. What is more, 

Plaintiff has the interests of those class members in mind, as demonstrated by her willingness to 

sue on a class-wide basis and step forward as the class representatives, which subjects them to 

discovery. 

Proposed Class Counsel, The Fish Law Firm PC will also fairly and adequately represent 

the class. Proposed Class Counsel are highly qualified and experienced attorneys. The Fish Law 

Firm, P.C. has extensive experience in class action litigation and its attorneys have been appointed 

class counsel on numerous occasions; they also are involved in more than a dozen cases involving 

biometric privacy violations. (See Exhibit A.) Thus, proposed Class Counsel, too, are adequate 

and have the ability and resources to manage this lawsuit. 

D. A Class Action Is The Appropriate Method For Fair And Efficient 

Adjudication Of This Controversy. 

Finally, a class action is the most appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this controversy, rather than bringing individual suits which could result in inconsistent 

determinations and unjust results. "It is proper to allow a class action where a Defendant is alleged 

to have acted wrongfully in the same basic manner toward an entire class." P..1. 's Concrete 

Pumping Service, Inc. v. Nextel West Corp., 345 Ill. App. 3d 992, 1003 (2d Dist. 2004). "The 

purported class representative must establish that a successful adjudication of its individual claims 

will establish a right of recovery or resolve a central issue on behalf of the class members." Id. 

Here, Plaintiff's claim stems from Defendant's common and uniform policies and 

practices, resulting in common violations of BIPA for all members of the class. Thus, class 

certification will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent 

10 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 37 of 46 PageID #:45
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

judgments concerning Defendant's practices. Wenthold v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 142 Ill. App. 

3d 612 (1st Dist. 1986). Without a class, the Court would have to hear dozens, if not hundreds, of 

additional individual cases raising identical questions of liability. Moreover, class members are 

better served by pooling resources rather than attempting to litigate individually. CE Design Ltd., 

2015 IL App. (1st) 131465, TT 28-30 (certifying TCPA class where statutory damages were alleged 

and rejecting arguments that individual lawsuits would be superior). In the interests of justice and 

judicial efficiency, it is desirable to concentrate the litigation i of all class members' claims in a , 

single forum. For all of these reasons, the class action is the most appropriate mechanism to 

adjudicate the claims in this case. 

E. The Court Should Allow Supplemental And Deferred Briefing Following 

Discovery. 

Defendant's practices and policies are uniform. Plaintiff believes that the present Motion 

should be supplemented based upon very limited initial discovery. Plaintiff is moving as early as 

possible for class certification in part to avoid the "buyoff problem," which occurs when a 

Defendant seeks to settle with a class representative on individual terms in an effort to moot the 

class claims asserted by the class representative. Plaintiff is also moving for class certification now 

because the class should be certified, and because no meaningful discovery is necessary to 

establish that fact. The instant motion is far more than a placeholder or barebones memorandum. 

Rather, Plaintiff's full arguments are set forth based on the facts known at this extremely early 

stage of litigation. Should the Court wish for more detailed factual information, the briefing 

schedule should be extended. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court enter an Order: 

(1) certifying Plaintiff's claims as a class action; (2) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; 

11 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 38 of 46 PageID #:46
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:

51 PM 2020CH03460 

(3) appointing The Fish Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel; and (4) authorizing court-facilitated 

notice of this class action to the class. In the alternative, this Court should allow discovery, allow 

Plaintiff to supplement this briefing, and defer response and reply briefs. 

Date: March 24, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

By: /s/ Mara Baltabols 

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys 

David Fish 

dfishfishlawfirm.com Mara Baltabols 

marafishlawfirm.com THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 

Naperville, Illinois 60563 

Tel: 630.355.7590 

Fax: 630.778.0400 

Cook Cnty #: 44086 

docketing (,fishlawfirm.com 

12 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 39 of 46 PageID #:47
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Exhibit A 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 40 of 46 PageID #:48
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

DECLARATION OF DAVID J FISH 

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and 

correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters 

the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true: 

1. lam-an-attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the State of 

Illinois. I am entering this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for and Memorandum in 

Support of Class Certification. This declaration is based upon my personal knowledge except 

where expressly noted otherwise. If called upon to testify to the matters stated herein, I could and 

would competently do so. 

2. I am the founder of The Fish Law Firm, P.C. 

3. I graduated #2 in my law school class from Northern Illinois University College of 

Law in 1999. Prior to starting my own firm, I was employed by other law firms engaged in 

litigation in and around Chicago, Illinois including, Jenner & Block in Chicago as a summer 

associate, Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins in Chicago as an associate and The Collins Law Firm, P.C. as 

an associate. 

4. I have extensive experience representing employees and employers in labor and 

employment disputes. I have handled disputes with the Illinois Department of Labor, the United 

States Department of Labor, the Illinois Department of Human Rights, the National Labor 

Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in the state and federal 

courts in Illinois. I have litigated dozens of cases in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois. 

1 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 41 of 46 PageID #:49
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

5. I am the former chair of the DuPage County Bar Association's Labor and 

Employment Committee and served on the Illinois State Bar Association's Labor and Employment 

Committee Section Council. I also am a member of the National Employment Lawyers 

Association. 

6. I have, on several occasions, lectured at educational seminars for lawyers and other 

professionals. I moderated a continuing legal education panel of federal magistrates and judges on 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure through the Illinois State Bar Association. I have presented 

on electronic discovery rules and testified before the United States Judicial Conference in Dallas, 

Texas regarding electronic discovery issues. I have provided several CLE presentations on issues 

relating to labor and employment law. 

7. I have authored, or co-authored, many articles, including: "Enforcing NonCompete Clauses in Illinois after Reliable Fire", Illinois Bar Journal(April 2012); "Top 10 wage 

violations in Illinois", ISBA Labor and Employment Newsletter(August, 2017); "Physician 

Non-Complete Agreements in Illinois: Diagnosis—Critical Condition; Prognosis- Uncertain" 

DuPage County Bar Journal(October 2002); "Are your clients' arbitration clauses enforceable?" 

Illinois State Bar Association, ADR Newsletter(October 2012); "The Legal Rock and the 

Economic Hard Place: Remedies of Associate Attorneys Wrongfully Terminated for Refusing to 

Violate Ethical Rules", Univ. of W. Los Angeles Law Rev.(1999); "Zero-Tolerance Discipline 

in Illinois Public Schools" Illinois Bar Journal(May 2001); "Ten Questions to Ask Before' 

Taking a Legal-Malpractice Case" Illinois Bar Journal(July 2002); "The Use Of The Illinois 

Rules of Professional Conduct to Establish The Standard of Care In Attorney Malpractice 

Litigation: An Illogical Practice", Southern Illinois Univ. Law Journal(1998); "An Analysis of 

2 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 42 of 46 PageID #:50
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:

51 PM 2020CH03460 

Firefighter Drug Testing under the Fourth Amendment", International Jour. Of Drug Testing 

(2000); "Local Government Web sites and the First Amendment", Government Law,(November 

2001, Vol. 38). 

8. Some examples of class, collective, and/or employment litigation in which I have served 

as a lawyer include: 

a. Larson v. Lennox Industries, 2013 WL 105902 (N.D. Ill, 12 c 2879)(conditional 

certification granted in FLSA action alleging that store managers were misclassified as exempt 

from receiving overtime pay). 

b. Nelson v. UBS Global Management, No. 03-C-6446, 04 C 7660 (N. D. Ill.)(ERISA 

class action on behalf of thousands of BP Amoco employees who had Enron debt purchased as 

part of their money market fund; recovery of approximately $7 million). 

c. Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, No. 05-2562 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 29, 2005)(class action 

alleging that company placed "spyware" on consumers' computers; resulted in a settlement that 

mandated significant disclosures to computer users before unwanted software could by placed 

on their computers, see also Julie Anderson, Sotelo v. Directrevenue, LLC: Paving the Way for 

Spyware-Free Internet, 22 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 841 (2005). 

d. Franzen v. IDS Futures Corporation, 06 CV 3012 (N. D. Ill. 2006)(recovery 

of millions of dollars for more than 1,000 limited partners in an investment fund that lost value as 

a result of the Refco bankruptcy). 

e. Pope v. Harvard Bancshares, 06 CV 988, 240 F.R.D 383 (N. D. Ill. 2006)(class 

action recovery of $1.3 million for former shareholders of community bank who had stock 

repurchased in a reorganization). 

3 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 43 of 46 PageID #:51
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

f Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 197 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (N.D. Ill. 

2016)(finding Fish appropriate to represent Class in wage and hour claims relating to overtime). 

g. Schrock v. Wenner Media LLC, et al, 10-cv-7230 (defended marketing 

company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of TCPA for unsolicited text 

message marketing; our client dismissed from case voluntarily without payment). 

h. G.M Sign Inc. v. Pastic-Mach Corporation, 12-cv-3149 and 10-cv-7854 

(defended putative nationwide class action alleging violations of TCPA for unsolicited junk faxes, 

both cases dismissed without payment by client). 

i. Ismael Salam v Nationwide Alarm LLC, 14-cv-1720 (defended putative 

nationwide class action alleging violations of TCPA for unsolicited calls to cellular telephone; our 

client dismissed with prejudice voluntarily without payment). 

J. Cope v. Millhurst Ale House of Yorkville, Inc. 14-cv-9498 (collective action for 

FLSA claims settled on collective basis). 

k. Girolamo v. Community Physical Therapy & Associates, Ltd, 15-cv-2361 

(alleging claims under FLSA, IMWL, IWPCA). 

1. Jones et al v. Sistar Beauty Corporation, 15-cv-3359 (collective action alleging 

FLSA and class action alleging Illinois Minimum Wage Law "IMWL" claims; final judgment 

entered). 

m. Magallan v. Pancho's Family Restaurant, LLC, 15-cv-5578 (defending FLSA 

and IMWL claims). 

n. Mello et al v. Krieger Kiddie Corporation, 15-cv-5660 (collective and putative 

class action alleging claims under FLSA, IMWL, IWPCA). 

o. Lampley v. Aryaani dba Subway, 15-cv-9332 (collective action alleging claims 

under FLSA, IMWL, IWPCA). 

4 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 44 of 46 PageID #:52
FILED DATE: 3/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

Kalechstein v. Mehrdad Abbassian, M.D., P.C., 15-cv-5929 (defending IWPCA 

Barker et al v. Septran, Inc, 15-cv-9270 (IMWL and putative collective claims 

under the FLSA and IWPCA). 

r. Simpkins v. DuPage Housing Authority, 15-cv-9103 (includes claims under 

FLSA and 1MWL). 

s. Day v. Stockton Construction Group, LLC, 15-cv-5884 (collective claims brought 

under FLSA, IMWL, and IWPCA). 

t. Wehrle v. Midwest Sleep Associates, LLC, 15-cv-4397 (collective action complaint 

alleging claims under FLSA and IMWL). 

u. Sharples et al v. Krieger Kiddie Corporation, 2013 CH 25358 (Cir. Court Cook 

County) (Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act IWPCA class action claims; final approval of 

class wide settlement). 

v. Wendell H. Stone Co. v. Metal Partners Rebar, 16-cv-8285 (defending TCPA 

class action). 

w. Barker v. Septran, 15-cv-9270 (Rule 23 IWPCA claim for vacation forfeiture and 

separate FLSA claims for overtime). 

x. Andrews v. Rockford Process Control, Inc., 3:17-cv-50171 (class and collective 

claims brought under the FLSA and the IMWL). 

y. Kusinski v. MacNeil Automotive Products Limited, 17-cv-03618 (class and 

collective claims under the FLSA and the IMWL; final approval of class settlement entered); 

z. Grace v. Brickstone, 17-cv-7849 (class and collective claims under the FLSA, 

IMWL, and IWPCA; final approval of class settlement). 

5 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 45 of 46 PageID #:53
FILED DATE: 3

/24/2020 2:51 PM 2020CH03460 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Illinois that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 8th day of February, 2019 at Naperville, Illinois. 

/s/ David J. Fish 

David J. Fish 

6 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2-1 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 46 of 46 PageID #:54