Genetic Information Privacy Act: Northern District of Illinois Holds FMCSA Preemption Does Not Bar GIPA Claim
Transportation companies have been forced to pay close attention to Illinois litigation in recent years due to the ongoing deluge of lawsuits brought by class action plaintiffs pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Similar attention must be paid to claims for statutory damages brought by plaintiffs under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), which have increased in recent years. A recent Northern District of Illinois decision denied a motion to dismiss based on federal preemption of GIPA claims brought against a motor carrier. This result, and other pending cases, can lead to an increase in the filings of class actions on this issue.
GIPA governs the collection of genetic information by employers and other entities and prohibits employers from “directly or indirectly” soliciting, requesting, or requiring the submission of genetic information of a person or the family member of a person “as a condition of employment or preemployment application.” A recent decision—McKnight v. United Airlines, Inc. left federal preemption open as a possible defense against GIPA claims. For transportation companies, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations require that they ensure a driver is physically qualified to operate a commercial vehicle. This physical qualification analysis is in direct conflict with GIPA since medical history may impact an analysis of whether a driver is physically qualified and should operate to preempt any such claims.
However, in Short v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03019 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 10, 2025), the Northern District of Illinois recently made clear that FMCSA preemption is not a silver bullet for transportation companies defending GIPA claims. In Short, the plaintiff’s GIPA claim was based on a medical examiner asking plaintiff during a physical about certain family medical history relating inheritable diseases and disorders. Plaintiff alleged that the questions regarding family medical history violated GIPA. The defendant transportation company, MV Transportation, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the family history was relevant to the plaintiff’s medical examination and thus preempted by the FMCSA regulations regarding physical qualification.
The Northern District held that the FMCSA regulations do not explicitly require “a medical examiner to solicit family medical history during a medical examination” and that the “mere possibility that a medical examiner asks for information protected by GIPA” does not “demonstrate impossibility to comply” with both the FMCSA regulations and GIPA. The Northern District further held that the defendant failed to show how GIPA stands as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of Congress. The Northern District accordingly denied MV Transportation’s motion to dismiss.
While the body of case law continues to develop around GIPA, Short serves as a warning to transportation companies that GIPA claims are viable to at least proceed into discovery since preemption does not operate as a foolproof defense. Illinois transportation companies should continue to monitor GIPA developments, review current hiring policies and procedures for compliance with GIPA, and specifically exercise caution when requiring employees to submit to physical exams, inquiries, or screenings that are not required by federal law.
If you have questions about GIPA, please contact Chip Andrewscavage, Andrew J. Butcher, Jared Kramer, Matthew Payne, or Dylan Goetsch.
News from Scopelitis is intended as a report to our clients and friends on developments affecting the transportation industry. The published material does not constitute an exhaustive legal study and should not be regarded or relied upon as individual legal advice or opinion.
Genetic Information Privacy Act: Northern District of Illinois Holds FMCSA Preemption Does Not Bar GIPA Claim
Transportation companies have been forced to pay close attention to Illinois litigation in recent years due to the ongoing deluge of lawsuits brought by class action plaintiffs pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Similar attention must be paid to claims for statutory damages brought by plaintiffs under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), which have increased in recent years. A recent Northern District of Illinois decision denied a motion to dismiss based on federal preemption of GIPA claims brought against a motor carrier. This result, and other pending cases, can lead to an increase in the filings of class actions on this issue.
GIPA governs the collection of genetic information by employers and other entities and prohibits employers from “directly or indirectly” soliciting, requesting, or requiring the submission of genetic information of a person or the family member of a person “as a condition of employment or preemployment application.” A recent decision—McKnight v. United Airlines, Inc. left federal preemption open as a possible defense against GIPA claims. For transportation companies, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations require that they ensure a driver is physically qualified to operate a commercial vehicle. This physical qualification analysis is in direct conflict with GIPA since medical history may impact an analysis of whether a driver is physically qualified and should operate to preempt any such claims.
However, in Short v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03019 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 10, 2025), the Northern District of Illinois recently made clear that FMCSA preemption is not a silver bullet for transportation companies defending GIPA claims. In Short, the plaintiff’s GIPA claim was based on a medical examiner asking plaintiff during a physical about certain family medical history relating inheritable diseases and disorders. Plaintiff alleged that the questions regarding family medical history violated GIPA. The defendant transportation company, MV Transportation, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the family history was relevant to the plaintiff’s medical examination and thus preempted by the FMCSA regulations regarding physical qualification.
The Northern District held that the FMCSA regulations do not explicitly require “a medical examiner to solicit family medical history during a medical examination” and that the “mere possibility that a medical examiner asks for information protected by GIPA” does not “demonstrate impossibility to comply” with both the FMCSA regulations and GIPA. The Northern District further held that the defendant failed to show how GIPA stands as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of Congress. The Northern District accordingly denied MV Transportation’s motion to dismiss.
While the body of case law continues to develop around GIPA, Short serves as a warning to transportation companies that GIPA claims are viable to at least proceed into discovery since preemption does not operate as a foolproof defense. Illinois transportation companies should continue to monitor GIPA developments, review current hiring policies and procedures for compliance with GIPA, and specifically exercise caution when requiring employees to submit to physical exams, inquiries, or screenings that are not required by federal law.
If you have questions about GIPA, please contact Chip Andrewscavage, Andrew J. Butcher, Jared Kramer, Matthew Payne, or Dylan Goetsch.
News from Scopelitis is intended as a report to our clients and friends on developments affecting the transportation industry. The published material does not constitute an exhaustive legal study and should not be regarded or relied upon as individual legal advice or opinion.