UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ALEXSIA BRADLEY individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GERRESHEIMER GLASS, INC., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 1:20-cv-2700 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant Gerresheimer Glass, Inc. (“Gerresheimer”), hereby removes this putative class 

action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois. This Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claims are preempted 

by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. This Court 

also has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) because minimal diversity 

exists and, on the face of Plaintiff’s pleadings, the maximum amount in controversy exceeds $5 

million. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, 1331, 1332(d), and 1453(b). Removal is timely under 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 

I. Overview of Claims Asserted and Relief Sought 

1. Gerresheimer is a Delaware Corporation that manufactures products for the 

healthcare industry. Plaintiff Alexsia Bradley vaguely asserts that she was employed by 

Gerresheimer in Illinois through 2019. Compl., ¶ 27, attached as part of Ex. A.1 Plaintiff alleges 

Gerresheimer uses an employee time tracking system that requires employees to scan their 

 

1

 Ex. A is “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served” on Ultimate Software. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(a). 

4831-5090-2203 v1 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2
2 

“fingerprint” to track time. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges she was required to scan her “fingerprint” 

to clock in and out from work and that Gerrescheimer subsequently stored her “fingerprint” in its 

database in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, 

et seq. Id. ¶¶ 5, 28. 

2. Plaintiff specifically alleges violations under four different subparts of BIPA’s 

Section 15. Compl. ¶¶ 47-50. Plaintiff alleges Gerresheimer failed to: 

• obtain a written release from Plaintiff and the Class before it collected, used, and 

stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information (Section 15(b)(3)); 

• inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their biometric identifiers and biometric 

information would be collected or stored (Section 15(b)(1)); 

• inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for 

which their biometric identifiers and biometric information were being collected, 

stored, and used (Section 15(b)(2)); and 

• maintain a publicly available retention schedule and guideline for permanently 

destroying its employees’ biometric identifiers and biometric information (Section 

15(a)). 

3. Plaintiff defines the putative class 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. 

Id. ¶ 35. 

4. Plaintiff seeks as relief, among other things, “liquidated damages for each of 

Defendant’s violations of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20” (id. ¶ 52). BIPA § 20 provides for 

liquidated damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation. 740 ILCS 14/20. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3
3 

II. There are two independent grounds for subject matter jurisdiction. 

A. Plaintiffs’ claims are completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA 

conferring federal question jurisdiction on this Court. 

5. Plaintiffs’ claims are completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor 

Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and therefore “arise under” federal law 

conferring federal question jurisdiction on this Court. See Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. 

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Fund of So. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 24 (1983); Caterpillar Inc. 

v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). 

6. In Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh 

Circuit held that BIPA claims based on an employer’s use of finger scan time clocks were 

preempted by the Railway Labor Act. It explained that it is “not possible even in principle to 

litigate a dispute about how an [employer] acquires and uses fingerprint information for its whole 

workforce without asking whether the union has consented on the employees’ collective behalf.” 

Id. at 903–04. Although Miller applied the Railway Labor Act, the Supreme Court has said that 

the preemption standard is essentially the same under the LMRA. See Hawaiian Airlines v. 

Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 260 (1994). Courts in the Northern District of Illinois have held that Miller

also applies to disputes involving the LMRA. See Fernandez v. Kerry, Case No. 17-cv-08971, 

2020 WL 1820521, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020); Gray v. The Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., Inc., 

Case No. 19-cv-4229, 2020 WL 1445608, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2020); Peatry v. Bimbo 

Bakeries USA, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2942, 2020 WL 919202, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2020). 

7. Like the BIPA plaintiffs in Miller, Kerry, Gray, and Peatry, Plaintiff has belonged 

to the union during her employment with Gerresheimer and the terms and conditions of her 

employment have been governed by collective bargaining agreements. (Declaration of Craig 

Calloway, ¶¶ 6-7, attached as Ex. B.) Gerresheimer and the union have been parties to collective 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:4
4 

bargaining agreements ratified by the union’s members for many years. (Id.) The relevant 

collective bargaining agreements are attached to Ex. B and were effective from April 1, 2013 to 

March 31, 2016, and April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2020. (Id.) 

8. Like the agreements in Miller, Kerry, Gray, and Peatry, the collective bargaining 

agreements contain a broad management-rights provision and establish a grievance procedure. 

The broad “Management Rights” provision states, “The Union recognizes the right and 

responsibility of the Company to manage the plant and direct its working forces. All rights of the 

Company which have not been specifically abridged or modified by this Contract are retained by 

the Company.” (Ex. B, ¶ 8.) The “Grievance Procedure” culminates in mandatory arbitration 

before the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (Ex. B, ¶ 8.) 

9. Under Miller, Kerry, Gray, and Peatry, Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by 

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. See also Kerry, 2020 WL 1820521 at *6 

(“Because plaintiffs’ BIPA claims necessarily requires interpretation of the collective bargaining 

agreement, it is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.”). 

B. There is jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. 

10. This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), which gives federal courts original jurisdiction in class actions where: 

“(1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) any member of the plaintiff 

class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant (‘minimal diversity’); (3) the primary 

defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district 

court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; and (4) the number of members of the plaintiff 

class is 100 or more.” Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 

2006). All four elements exist here. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:5
5 

11. The proposed class covers more than 250 employees. (Ex. B ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges 

that she seeks to represent a class of hundreds of persons. (Compl. ¶ 36; Mot. for Class Cert. at 6, 

attached as part of Ex. A.) Thus, the number of members of the putative class exceeds 100. 

12. Minimal diversity exists where “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of 

a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Plaintiff alleges she is a natural 

person and citizen of Illinois. Compl. ¶ 7. Gerresheimer is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, 

because it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Vineland, New Jersey. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (deeming a corporation a citizen of both the state “where it has its 

principal place of business” and its state of incorporation); Compl. ¶ 8; Ex. B ¶ 4. Accordingly, 

minimal diversity exists 

13. Gerresheimer is not a state, state official, or government entity and not a citizen of 

Illinois, whereas Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois. (Compl. ¶¶7-8; Ex. B ¶ 4.) Therefore, there is 

minimal diversity. 

14. Plaintiff asserts four types of alleged violations, and seeks statutory damages of 

up to $5,000 for “each” violation (Compl. ¶¶ 47-50, 52, Prayer), and CAFA requires “the claims 

of the individual [purported class] members [to] be aggregated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Based 

on Defendant’s declaration that the proposed class has more than 250 members, the jurisdictional 

threshold of $5 million has been alleged (251 x $5,000 x 4 = $5,020,000.00). (Ex. B ¶ 9.) 

III. The Procedural Requirements for Removal Have Been Satisfied 

This notice is timely. A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of service. 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b). Gerresheimer was served on April 2, 2020. Ex. B ¶ 5. Counting forward 30 

days comes to Saturday, May 2, 2020, making the deadline for removal Monday, May 4, 2020. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Gerresheimer is the sole defendant, and therefore there are no other 

defendants whose consent would be necessary. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:6
6 

Gerresheimer is today timely filing this notice with the Circuit Court of Cook County, 

along with an executed copy of the Notice of Filing Notice of Removal. Gerresheimer is also today 

serving those filings on all parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). 

Dated: May 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

GERRESHEIMER GLASS, INC. 

By: /s/ Melissa A. Siebert 

Melissa A. Siebert 

Erin Bolan Hines 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: (312) 704-7700 

Fax: (312) 558-1195 

masiebert@shb.com 

ehines@shb.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:7
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Melissa A. Siebert, an attorney, hereby certify that on May 4, 2020, I caused a true and 

correct copy of NOTICE OF REMOVAL to be served by electronic mail on counsel of record 

in, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, addressed as follows:

David Fish 

dfish@fishlaw.com

Mara Baltabols 

mara@fishlaw.com

The Fish Law Firm, P.C. 

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 

Naperville, Illinois 60563 

Tel: 630.355.7590 

Fax: 630.778.0400 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 /s/ Melissa A. Siebert 

Case: 1:20-cv-02700 Document #: 2 Filed: 05/04/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:8