Advanced technologies are making their way into the workplace with no signs of slowing down. Handwritten employee time records and schedules are being replaced by more sophisticated systems and technologies.
One such technology is biometrics. Biometric technology measures and analyzes individuals’ biological data to identify and authenticate employees, track productivity, improve security, and more. Popular forms of biometric systems include finger and hand scanning, facial and voice recognition, and iris scanning, among others. While companies’ use of biometrics may rarely be challenged by consumers (for example, to gain entry to an amusement park or tanning bed), employees are more likely to view the use of their biometric data as a dangerous and unnecessary intrusion. Employers
“Often, the fear is that the data could be stolen or misused. However, much of this fear is unfounded and can be reduced by properly explaining the technology.”
Workplace biometrics are increasingly popular in response to the rising tide of wage and hour claims against employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). With the volume and monetary risks of FLSA
As biometric technology becomes more common in the workplace, employees, unions, and others increasingly object to its use. They argue that the technology is too invasive, a violation of privacy, or easily compromised. Often, the fear is that the data could be stolen or misused. However, much of this fear is unfounded and can be reduced by properly explaining the technology and informing the employee that what is stored by the system is only a comparison model from which his or her actual individual characteristics cannot be reproduced.
Employers frequently ask what they can do when
One factor to consider is the potential for unlawful discrimination claims under federal, state, or local laws. In 2013, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Consol Energy, Inc., and Consolidation Coal Company, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion under federal law. Based on his religious beliefs, an employee objected to providing biometric data for a biometric hand scanner. The employee requested a religious accommodation and, although the employer previously provided an accommodation for two disabled employees, the religious accommodation request was denied. The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the employee, awarding $150,000 in compensatory damages. The judge awarded an additional $436,860.74 in
While appeals are pending, the nearly $600,000 decision shows just how important it is for employers to be fully versed on potential issues prior to implementing a biometric system.
Advanced technologies in the workplace, including biometrics, are here to stay. It is imperative that employers do their homework and be prepared for the challenges associated with the evolving use of biometrics in the workplace.

Trending Articles
Greece: Litigation or Mediation?
Family Law – Sometimes All in the Family
Achieving Justice For Essential Workers
Is It Live . . . Or Is It Virtual?
Effect of Anti-Suit Injunction in Cross Border Litigation
Billy N. Jones - Georgia 2020 Lawyer of the Year
A Standing Issue in Class Action Lawsuits
A Global Approach to Settlement
Costs recovery in the SICC: A different regime
Are Guarantors penalised more heavily than the Borrower in case of the Borrower's Default?
Need for Speed: Get your Anti-Suit Injunction Fast!
A Startup Accelerator Program Sets Cuatrecasas Apart
Opening Pandora's Box in Portuguese Tax Law
The Growing Need for Expert Witnesses Across All Kinds of Litigation
Rebuilding Faith in the Legal System
3 Strategies to Frame Your Medical Malpractice Case
Education by Trial: Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom
The Relationship Isn’t about You
For Gillin, Jacobson, Ellis, Larsen & Lucey, the Focus Is on Quality over Quantity
The Importance of Trial Preparation
Expanding Foreign Investment through Treaty Investor (E-2) Visa Reform
New Legislation and Court Judgments
Impact of the U.S. Presidential Election on Business Immigration Issues
Russia's Evolving Legal Environment and the Next Economic Upswing
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: A New Federal Civil Cause of Action for Trade Secret Theft
Driven, Obsessed, and Loving Every Minute
Panama Papers: Evasion and Avoidance
Insurance for Small Businesses: Prudent Management of Risk
Protect Two of Your Most Valuable Business Assets: Your Company Name and Important Brand Names
STOLI Law Developing Across the Country As Courts Continue Deciding Cases
Understaffed Nursing Homes Jeopardize Patient Safety
Fiery Advocates Honored—For Work Inside and Outside the Courtroom
Giving 100% for Injury Victims
Non-Competition Agreements: Are They Facing Possible Extinction?
Marijuana in the Workplace: The Stakes are Getting Higher
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace – What US: Massachusetts Companies Need to Know
Immigration Compliance at the Worksite
FAQs on 'Generation Z' in the Workplace
Accessorial Liability in the Fissured Workplace
OSHA Officially Increases Civil Penalties by 78 Percent
Arnold Shep Cohen, Newark "Lawyer of the Year" for Employment Law – Individuals 2017
Employee Handbooks: Benefits, Pitfalls and Preserving At-Will Employment
Restrictive Covenants in Michigan: A Cent, a Peppercorn, or Continued At-Will Employment
Biometric Privacy: It’s Not Just an Illinois Issue
The views and opinions expressed in the above article(s) are those of the attorney/firm and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Best Lawyers, LLC.