Biometric data tracking at work sparks privacy and legal debate
MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES — As biometric and health-tracking technologies become more advanced and affordable, employers are increasingly collecting employees’ bodily data to boost productivity and safety.
However, analysis from the Harvard Business Review suggests that these initiatives, when implemented poorly, may backfire—damaging morale, increasing job insecurity, and ultimately lowering productivity.
Employers often fail to realize how invasive health screenings, surveillance, and behavioral tracking can trigger psychological stress and a sense of lost autonomy among employees.
Lawsuits, low morale, and legal risk
The risks are not just theoretical. Last year, BNSF Railway settled a $75 million class-action lawsuit over improper fingerprint scanning. Meta, Speedway, Old Dominion Freight Line, and Serco have faced similar legal challenges for collecting biometric data without proper consent.
Such programs often feel coercive to employees, especially when linked to performance reviews or insurance incentives. In one case, Yale University faced legal action for penalizing workers who declined to share health data, resulting in a large settlement and suspension of the policy.
Best practices: Ethical and transparent data use
Researchers Andrew Park, Jan Kietzmann, and Jay Killoran offer two key guidelines for companies: Be transparent and separate data collection from performance evaluation.
For example, Caterpillar tracks operator fatigue using eye-tracking technology but anonymizes the data and explicitly excludes it from performance reviews. Similarly, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota clearly outlines how it collects and uses health data for wellness programs, emphasizing privacy and choice.
“Thoughtful, ethical design is essential to ensure these initiatives build trust and resilience, not fear,” the researchers note.
Employees’ rights and global regulatory landscape
Workers aren’t powerless. Experts recommend asking for clarity about what data is collected and how it’s used and proposing less-invasive alternatives.
Laws like Illinois’ BIPA and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) set high standards for consent and data protection, but enforcement and protections vary by country. Legal precedents—like a court ruling in favor of a coal miner who objected to hand scanning—support employees’ rights to refuse certain types of monitoring.
While biometric technologies offer clear operational benefits, organizations must balance innovation with respect for employee privacy and legal compliance. As global scrutiny intensifies, companies that prioritize transparency, consent, and ethical data use are more likely to foster trust, avoid costly litigation, and realize the true benefits of workplace biometrics.
