Attention June 12th, 2024 Webinar Attendees, please click here to complete our Survey or Attendance Verification and Credit Request Form. (required for CLE credit)

Important! June 12th, 2024 Webinar Attendees, please click here to complete our Survey or Verification Request Form.

Click Here

Legal Pitfalls of Using Biometric Data in the Workplace

Last update





Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Be careful with employee biometric technology in your office.

By Nathan Lennon, Guest Contributor, Reminger Legal Professional Liability Practice Group

As often happens, the state of the law lags behind social and technological developments, resulting in potential conflicts and pitfalls for the unwary.

One new potential area of conflict that all HR professionals should be aware of is the legal implication of the use or dissemination of employee biometric data. With advances in technology, increasingly employers are using biometric data in numerous areas of business in an effort to increase employee productivity.

For instance, biometrics, in the form of fingerprint and facial recognition, are often used as security measures to restrict access to facilities or data systems. In addition, as many HR professionals are aware, the increasing trend for several years now has been to encourage employees to undergo annual voluntary biometric screenings as a part of employer-sponsored health insurance programs. The use of biometrics and biometric data has even begun to penetrate the consumer electronics market – as everyone knows by now, even cell phones use biometric data to lock and unlock access to the phones.

As a member of Alta Pro Lawyers RPG, you automatically get the claim repair expertise of Reminger’s Legal Professional Liability Practice Group. Prevent problems before they happen – or limit your losses – with Alta Pro and Reminger on your side.  Find out how to join here.

From Fingerprints to Voice Recognition
Given greater access to unique data about employees – whether in the form of facial recognition, fingerprint data, or voice recognition, employers might be tempted to use this data in ways that could lead to potential legal exposure.

For example, one such potential scenario could arise where an employer is tempted to share biometric data collected during employment or in an internal company investigation with law enforcement in an effort to protect its interests from internal theft of intellectual property. If the employer can tie access to company property to the unique identifier of an employee’s fingerprints or facial geometry, this type of evidence would be particularly helpful for law enforcement in a criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, even in a scenario like this, where the employer might feel justified in sharing this unique identifying information with law enforcement, HR professionals should tread very carefully. Numerous states, including Washington, Texas, and Illinois, have biometric data privacy acts. Although the protections vary by state, of course, many of these acts require consent of the employee to collect biometric data, and notification when that data is shared with third parties. Although Ohio and Kentucky do not have biometric privacy laws as such, Kentucky has recently adopted a notification statute that requires essentially any business in Kentucky experiencing a data breach of customer or employee information (including specifically biometric data) to inform the third-party of the breach. See KRS 365.732.

HIPAA Considerations
In addition to state laws which are specifically beginning to protect biometric data, existing federal law likely would come into play as well. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) was initially enacted to protect private health information of patients, and is recognized as an important privacy concern in the employment context as well. Protected health information under HIPAA is generally regarded to include individual patient identifiers, including fingerprints and retinal scans. Beyond these “outer” identifiers, with the rise of the use of genetic testing, congress extended many of the protections of HIPAA to pure “genetic” information, through the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act “GINA”. Although nominally concerned with prevention of employment discrimination based on genetic information, the GINA’s statutory reach extends to literally any manifestation of disease in an individual or the family member of an individual, regardless of whether such disease has a genetic basis or not.

Given the thicket of state and federal laws governing the use and dissemination of biometric data, any employer should be very careful in voluntarily sharing   employee biometric data with law enforcement, or frankly anyone else. As previously noted, in Illinois and several other states this data essentially cannot be shared at all without employee consent. And even in Kentucky, an employer would likely have to notify the employee about any data breach of employees’ biometrics. Finally, due to the personally-identifiable nature of any employee’s biometric data, it appears that HIPAA would prevent this dissemination absent a court order, subpoena, or employee consent.

With the maze of local and national laws applicable to employee biometric data, if an HR professional believes that it might be necessary to share the biometric data of an employee with law enforcement or anyone else, the first call that professional should make is to an attorney, to assist in guiding them through this legal minefield. The employment attorneys of Reminger are available all throughout Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana to assist in this area or with any other labor and employment needs that you may have.

When you’re a member of Alta Pro Lawyers RPG, you get instant access to malpractice prevention experts like Nathan Lennon. It’s part of our claim avoidance and repair program. Learn how to join here.

This article originally appeared in the Employment Newsletter (November 2019 issue).

This has been prepared for informational purposes only. It does not contain legal advice or legal opinion and should not be relied upon for individual situations. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship between the Reader and Reminger. The information in this document is subject to change and the Reader should not rely on the statements in this document without first consulting legal counsel.

About the Author

Nathan Lennon practices in Reminger’s Fort Mitchell office, where he focuses in the areas of products liability, commercial litigation, appellate advocacy, professional liability, general casualty, insurance coverage, and government/public entity liability.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts on!

Alta Pro Logo Icon

About the Editorial Staff

In an age of consolidation where increasingly impersonal transactions have made customer service an oxymoron, we bring together independent agents, insurance companies, and other industry specific service providers to develop and deliver insurance products and risk management solutions that benefit our insurance customers.

Join Our Newsletter

Occasional newsletters and CLE invites

Find Us on Social

Upcoming CLE Webinar: Cybersecurity for Attorneys: Employing Competent and Reasonable Safeguards

June 12, 2024 1:00 pm EST
CLE Credit: 1.0 Ethics

David G. Ries

Clark Hill


Latest Videos

1 Hour

Essential Business Skills for Busy Lawyers Part 1 – Communicate Like A Pro

1 Hour

Creating an Attorney Compensation Plan That Will Build Firm Culture and Attract Top Talent

1 Hour

Four “Ds” of Client Relations: Dabbling, Documentation, Difficult Clients, Don’t Do it!

Need Help?

Visit our Frequently Asked Questions page. 

Or email us directly at

Or submit your issue in the comment form below and we will respond as soon as possible.