1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DAWON A. WORDLAW, individually 

and on behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY 

OF CHICAGO, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; ENTERPRISE 

HOLDINGS, INC., a Missouri 

corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-03200

Hon. Manish S. Shah

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Dawon A. Wordlaw (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all similarly 

situated individuals, brings this First Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants

Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (collectively, 

“Enterprise” or “Defendants”) for their violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy 

Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), and to obtain redress for persons injured by their conduct. 

Plaintiff alleges the following based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s own experiences, and 

as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including an investigation conducted by 

Plaintiff’s attorneys.

INTRODUCTION

1. BIPA defines a “biometric identifier” as any personal feature that is unique to an 

individual, including handprints, fingerprints and palm scans. “Biometric information” is any 

information based on a biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or stored. 740 ILCS 

§ 14/10. Collectively, biometric identifiers and biometric information are known as “biometrics.”
2

2. This case concerns the misuse of individuals’ biometrics by Defendants, providers 

of automobile rental services throughout Illinois. Using biometric enabled technology, Defendants

are capturing, collecting, storing, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of Plaintiff and 

other Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track 

their time at work.

3. BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as Defendants, may not obtain 

and/or possess an individual’s biometrics unless they first:

(1) inform the person whose biometrics are to be collected in writing that 

biometric identifiers or biometric information will be collected or stored; 

(2) inform the person whose biometrics are to be collected in writing of the 

specific purpose and the length of term for which such biometric identifiers 

or biometric information is being collected, stored and used;

(3) receive a written release from the person whose biometrics are to be collected, 

allowing the capture and collection of their biometric identifiers or biometric 

information; and

(4) publish publicly available retention guidelines for permanently destroying 

biometric identifiers and biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

4. Compliance with BIPA is straightforward and may be accomplished through a 

single, signed sheet of paper. BIPA’s requirements bestow a right to privacy in biometrics and a 

right to make an informed decision when electing whether to provide or withhold biometrics.

5. Defendants use biometric timekeeping devices to track their employees’ work 

hours. Defendants’ system works by scanning their employees’ biometric identifiers, such as their 

fingerprints, and subsequently using the same for authentication and timekeeping purposes. On
3

information and belief, the system includes the dissemination of biometrics to third parties, such 

as other Enterprise subsidiaries, data storage vendors, and payroll service providers. 

6. The Illinois Legislature has found that “biometrics are unlike other unique 

identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, even 

sensitive information like Social Security numbers can be changed. Biometrics, however, are 

biologically unique to each individual and, once compromised, such individual has no recourse, is 

at a heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric facilitated 

transactions.” 740 ILCS 14/5. The risk is compounded when a person’s biometrics are also 

associated with their other personally identifiable information. 

7. Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of 

Defendants’ conduct in violating Plaintiff’s biometric privacy rights.

8. On Plaintiff’s own behalf, and on behalf of the proposed Class and Subclass defined 

below, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA, as well as an 

award of statutory damages to the Class and Subclass members, together with costs and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees.

PARTIES

9. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Dawon A. Wordlaw has been a resident and a citizen 

of the state of Illinois.

10. Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

the state of Missouri, with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, that conducts 

substantial business throughout Illinois, including within this District. Defendant Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. is the corporate parent, and sole member, of Defendant Enterprise Leasing 

Company of Chicago, LLC. Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s President and Chief Executive 
4

Officer, Christine Taylor, Executive Chairman, Andrew Taylor, and Chief Financial Officer, Rick 

Short, are registered with the Illinois Secretary of State as the managers of Enterprise Leasing 

Company of Chicago, LLC. 

11. Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in 

Lombard, Illinois, that conducts substantial business throughout Illinois, and is registered with and 

authorized by the Illinois Secretary of State to transact business in Illinois, including under the 

assumed name “Enterprise Holdings.” Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC 

is a regional subsidiary of Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Class 

Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) et seq., because this case is a class action in which the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; there 

are greater than 100 putative class members; at least one putative class member is a citizen of a 

state other than Defendant; and none of the exceptions under subsection § 1332(d) apply.

13. This Court may assert personal jurisdiction over Defendants, because Defendants

do business within Illinois and transact business in Illinois such that they have sufficient minimum 

contacts with Illinois and/or have purposely availed themselves of Illinois markets to make it 

reasonable for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over Defendants, and because Plaintiff’s claims 

arise out of Defendants’ unlawful in-state actions.

14. Venue is proper in this District because Plaintiff resides in this District and a 

substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
5

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. Defendants jointly operate automobile rental services in Illinois. 

16. Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. exercises substantial control over its regional 

subsidiaries’, such as Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC’s, business 

practices and employee management practices, including with respect to employee privacy and 

data protection matters.

17. In fact, Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. maintains a public Code of Conduct,

1

addressing employee management matters, which refers to its regional subsidiaries’ employees as 

“our employees” and expressly governs itsregional subsidiaries’ employee management practices, 

referring to itself and its subsidiaries as a collective “Company”: “The word ‘Company,’ where

used in the Code, refers to Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc., and/or, 

in their individual capacities, each subsidiary company.”

 1 A true and accurate copy of Defendants’ shared, publicly-available Code of Conduct is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A.
6
7

18. The Code of Conduct expressly applies to all those within “the Company,”

including, by definition, employees of Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s regional subsidiaries:

19. With respect to employee privacy, the Code of Conduct states that Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries protect sensitive information, including employees’ personal 

information, “by limiting access to those who have a business need to know it, securing the systems 

that transmit or store it, and ensuring our use of the information complies with privacy laws”:
8

20. The Code of Conduct also provides that Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and its 

subsidiaries are “committed to protecting the privacy of its employees’ private information”:

21. As is evident from the Code of Conduct, Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and 

its regional subsidiaries, including Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC, 
9

subscribe to common policies, implemented by Enterprise Holdings, Inc., covering various areas

of employee management, and do not observe corporate formalities with respect to employee 

management. Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. speaks for its regional subsidiaries when it 

comes to managing employee privacy, and has publicly stated both its intention and its regional 

subsidiaries’ intentions to comply with all privacy laws. 

22. Thus, on information and belief, at all relevant times Defendant Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. has exercised primary, if not exclusive, control over its subsidiaries’, including

Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC’s, practices with respect to employee 

privacy matters and other employment conditions.

23. As is evident from its Code of Conduct, Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. had 

the exclusive final say as to whether its regional subsidiaries would comply with all privacy laws, 

including BIPA.

24. As is evident from its Code of Conduct, which does not differentiate between itself 

and its regional subsidiaries, Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc. has engaged in an undertaking 

to ensure legally-compliant and sufficient working conditions, which includes ensuring workers 

within its facilities are not subject to illegal working conditions, such as non-compliant biometric 

timekeeping systems and conduct by its subsidiaries that jeopardizes health, safety, or personal 

data.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF

25. In 2016, while Plaintiff was working for Defendants at an Enterprise facility in

Cook County, Illinois, Defendants implemented biometric scanning and time-tracking devices and 

technology to monitor and manage their workers’, including Plaintiff’s, work hours.
10

26. While Plaintiff received her paychecks from Defendant Enterprise Leasing 

Company of Chicago, LLC, the conditions of her work environment, including matters pertaining 

to employee timekeeping, employee privacy, employee discipline, and the scope of acceptable 

employee behavior, were controlled by Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

27. Until Plaintiff left Defendants’ employ in March 2019, Plaintiff was required to 

scan her biometric identifiers, in the form of her fingerprints, each time Plaintiff clocked in and 

clocked out of a shift at work. 

28. Plaintiff relied on Defendants to not only provide a lawful and legally compliant 

biometric timekeeping system, but to also disclose all material information regarding the 

technology and system, including all relevant retention, destruction, and dissemination policies. 

29. Prior to taking Plaintiff’s biometrics, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff in writing 

that her biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or provide her with any 

disclosures relating to their collection, storage, or dissemination of her biometrics. 

30. Defendants did not seek, and Plaintiff never provided, any written consent relating 

to the collection, use, storage, or dissemination of Plaintiff’s biometrics.

31. Prior to taking Plaintiff’s biometrics, Defendants did not make publicly available 

any written policy as to a biometric retention schedule, nor did Defendants disclose any guidelines 

for permanently destroying her collected biometrics. 

32. Additionally, Defendants did not obtain consent from Plaintiff to disseminate 

Plaintiff’s biometrics to third parties, including any data storage or payroll processing vendors.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

33. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this action 

individually and on behalf of a Class and Subclass defined as follows:
11

Class: All individuals whose biometrics were captured, collected, stored, 

used, transmitted, or disseminated by or on behalf of Defendant Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. within the state of Illinois at any time within the applicable 

limitations period. 

Subclass: All individuals whose biometrics were captured, collected, stored, 

used, transmitted, or disseminated by or on behalf of Defendant Enterprise 

Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC within the state of Illinois at any time 

within the applicable limitations period.

34. Excluded from the Class and Subclass are any members of the judiciary assigned 

to preside over this matter; any officer or director of Defendants; and any immediate family 

member of such officers or directors.

35. Upon information and belief, there are at least hundreds of members of the Class, 

making the Class members so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although 

the exact number of Class members is currently unknown to Plaintiff, the members can be easily 

identified through Defendants’ personnel records.

36. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members Plaintiff seeks to 

represent, because the factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and the other 

members are the same, and because Defendants’ conduct has resulted in similar injuries to Plaintiff 

and to the Class. As alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class have all suffered damages as a result of 

Defendants’ BIPA violations. 

37. 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. 

Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendants’ conduct is subject to BIPA;

b. Whether Defendants made available to the public a written policy that establishes 

a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometrics;
12

c. Whether Defendants obtained a written release from the Class before capturing, 

collecting, or otherwise obtaining their biometrics;

d. Whether Defendants provided a written disclosure that explains the specific 

purposes, and the length of time, for which biometrics were being collected, stored 

and used before taking such biometrics;

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates BIPA;

f. Whether Defendants’ violations of the BIPA are willful or reckless; and

g. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

38. Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating 

their claims to be prohibitively expensive and would thus have no effective remedy. The class 

treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple individual actions in that it 

conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes consistency of adjudication.

39. Plaintiff will adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the 

Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation 

and class actions. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this 

action on behalf of the other members of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. 

Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of 

the Class.

40. Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure 

compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and making injunctive or 

corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the Class as a whole.
13

COUNT I

Violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass) 

41. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

42. Defendants are each a private entity under BIPA.

43. BIPA requires private entities, such as Defendants, to obtain informed written 

consent from individuals before acquiring their biometric information. Specifically, BIPA makes 

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

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 for which a 

biometric identifier or biometric information is being captured, 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).

44. BIPA also requires that private entities in possession of biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information establish and maintain a publicly available biometric retention and 

destruction policy. 

45. Plaintiff and the other Class and Subclass members have had their “biometric 

identifiers,” namely their fingerprints, collected, captured, or otherwise obtained by Defendants in 

order to track their work hours. Plaintiff and the other Class and Subclass members’ biometric 

identifiers were also used to identify them, and therefore constitute “biometric information” as 

defined by BIPA. 740 ILCS 14/10.

46. Each instance Plaintiff and the other Class and Subclass members were required to 

scan their fingerprints, Defendants captured, collected, stored, and/or used Plaintiff’s and the other 
14

Class and Subclass members’ biometric identifiers or biometric information without valid consent 

and without complying with and, thus, in violation of BIPA. 

47. Defendants’ practice with respect to capturing, collecting, storing, and using 

biometrics fails to comply with applicable BIPA requirements:

a. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the members of the Class in 

writing that their biometrics were being collected and stored, prior to such 

collection or storage, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1);

b. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing of the specific 

purpose for which their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, 

and used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2);

c. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing the specific 

length of term their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and 

used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2);

d. Defendants failed to obtain a written release, as required by 740 ILCS 

14/15(b)(3);

e. Defendants failed to provide a publicly available retention schedule 

detailing the length of time for which the biometrics are stored and/or 

guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics they store, as required 

by 740 ILCS 14/15(a); and

f. Defendants failed to obtain informed consent to disclose or disseminate the 

Class’ biometrics to third parties, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(d)(1).

48. By capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff’s and the Class’ biometrics as 

described herein, Defendants denied Plaintiff and the Class their right to statutorily required 
15

information and violated their respective rights to biometric information privacy, as set forth in 

BIPA.

49. BIPA provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless 

violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 740 

ILCS 14/20(1)-(2).

50. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the biometric timekeeping 

systems used would be subject to the provisions of BIPA, a law in effect since 2008, yet wholly

failed to comply with the statute. As is evident from Defendants’ Code of Conduct, Defendants 

represent that they strive to stay abreast of and comply with applicable privacy laws, but failed to 

do so with respect to BIPA:

51. Alternatively, Defendants negligently failed to comply with BIPA.

52. Accordingly, with respect to Count I, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the 

proposed Class, prays for the relief set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class and Subclass, 

respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:

a. Certifying the Class and Subclass as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as class 

representative and the undersigned as class counsel;

b. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set forth herein, violate BIPA;
16

c. Awarding injunctive and equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of 

Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA;

d. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of 

BIPA, pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2);

e. Awarding statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA, 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); 

f. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses pursuant 

to 740 ILCS 14/20(3); 

g. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest, as allowable by law; and

h. Awarding such further and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Dated: September 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

DAWON A. WORDLAW, individually and 

on behalf of all similarly situated individuals

By: /s/ Timothy P. Kingsbury

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Timothy P. Kingsbury

Andrew T. Heldut

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel: (312) 893-7002

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

aheldut@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class