CSL Plasma Lawsuit: $9.9M Biometric Settlement and ADA Split

CSL Plasma, one of the largest plasma collection companies in the United States, has been the defendant in a string of lawsuits over the past decade. The most prominent CSL Plasma lawsuit ended in a $9.9 million class action settlement in Illinois over fingerprint scanning at donation centers, but the company has also faced federal and state cases alleging discrimination against donors with disabilities and transgender donors, with mixed outcomes across different courts.

The $9.9 Million Illinois Biometric Privacy Settlement

In September 2019, Jada Marsh and Charles Hilson sued CSL Plasma in Cook County, alleging the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) at its Illinois donation centers. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as Case No. 19-cv-07606 before Judge Edmond E. Chang.¹

The complaint alleged CSL used a finger-scanning system to verify donor identity but never obtained the written informed consent BIPA requires before collecting biometric data. The plaintiffs also said CSL failed to publish a policy explaining how long it would keep fingerprint data and when it would destroy it, both statutory obligations.¹

The class covered everyone who scanned a finger at a CSL Plasma facility in Illinois as part of the donation process between September 5, 2014, and October 16, 2019, an estimated 74,800 people.¹

Settlement Terms and Approval

CSL Plasma agreed to pay $9.9 million into a non-reversionary fund, so any unclaimed money would not go back to the company. If the verified class grew by more than 500 members, the fund would increase proportionally. Individual payouts were projected between roughly $217 and $578 depending on claim volume. Class counsel could seek up to 35 percent of the fund in fees, and each named plaintiff was eligible for up to $5,000. Uncashed checks were designated for Prairie State Legal Services and the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.¹

The court granted preliminary approval on June 8, 2022.² The claims deadline was November 3, 2022.³ Final approval followed.⁴ The claim window has closed.

Are Plasma Centers Covered by the ADA? A Circuit Split

Whether a donor with a disability has federal civil rights protection at a CSL Plasma facility depends on where the facility sits. Three federal appeals courts have addressed the question and reached different answers.

Silguero v. CSL Plasma (Fifth Circuit)

Mark Silguero, who uses a cane, alleged CSL turned him away because of his physical disability. Amy Wolfe alleged she was barred under a blanket policy against service animals, though she uses one to manage anxiety. Both sued under Title III of the ADA.⁵

In October 2018 the Fifth Circuit ruled that a plasma center is not a “service establishment” under the ADA, reasoning that a business paying donors for a commercially valuable product looks more like contract labor than a service.⁶ The Supreme Court denied review on February 24, 2020, leaving the ruling in force in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.⁷

Levorsen and Matheis: The Opposite View

The Tenth Circuit, in Levorsen v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc. (2016), held that plasma centers qualify as service establishments because they provide trained personnel and specialized equipment to facilitate donation, and Congress deliberately removed the word “similar” from the statute so the list would be read broadly.⁸

The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in Matheis v. CSL Plasma, Inc. (2019), rejecting the argument that the direction of payment matters and pointing out that banks pay customers interest without losing their status as service establishments. That court also held that CSL’s categorical ban on psychiatric service animals violated Title III, and that any safety-based exclusion must rest on an individualized risk assessment rather than assumptions about disability.⁹

The DOJ Position

In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the Illinois attorney general’s case against CSL Plasma. The DOJ argued that plasma centers are public accommodations under the ADA, called the Fifth Circuit’s Silguero decision “incorrect,” and said the direction of compensation between a business and its customers is irrelevant to whether a service is being provided.⁹

State Discrimination Cases and Their Settlements

Illinois Attorney General

In June 2020, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul sued CSL Plasma and parent company CSL Behring LLC in federal court, alleging violations of the ADA and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The complaint pointed to a Rockford resident turned away in November 2018 because she had a service animal, and a deaf donor in Montgomery, Illinois, denied an ASL interpreter in July 2018 on the grounds that providing one violated company policy.¹⁰

The case settled in December 2023. CSL updated its policies to permit service animals and to provide effective communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing donors, including qualified ASL interpreters.¹¹

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition

In May 2020, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and four individual plaintiffs sued CSL Plasma in federal court in Colorado, alleging the company excluded donors with controlled mental illnesses like schizophrenia based on stereotypes, refused to provide wheelchair-accessible scales, did not help donors with mobility limitations onto donation beds, and rejected service animals other than seeing-eye dogs.¹²

In April 2021, CSL Plasma settled. The company agreed to permit donors with controlled mental illnesses to donate when their medication does not affect safety or plasma quality, to allow service animals consistent with the ADA, to provide wheelchair-accessible scales, and to offer reasonable modifications for donors with disabilities accessing donation beds. Financial terms were kept confidential.¹³

Transgender Donor Cases

Kaiser v. CSL Plasma (Washington)

In April 2015, Jasmine Kaiser, a transgender woman, sued CSL Plasma in federal court in Seattle after a Kent, Washington, facility turned her away in June 2014 and imposed a “lifetime deferment” because she is transgender. Kaiser brought claims under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act.¹⁴

In March 2017, Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled for Kaiser on key pretrial issues, holding that federal law did not shield CSL Plasma from the state anti-discrimination claims and that the company could not identify any regulation requiring the exclusion of transgender donors. The court noted that the FDA has no policy barring donation based on transgender status and that FDA guidance revised in December 2015 directs collection centers to accept a donor’s self-identified gender.¹⁵ The case settled out of court after the ruling.¹⁴

Minnesota Department of Human Rights

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights investigated two complaints: a transgender woman identified as “Alice,” who was barred from donating in Duluth and Minneapolis after marking “female” on her intake forms, and a non-binary donor identified as “Charlie.” After finding probable cause, the MDHR sued CSL Plasma in March 2019 under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and later amended the complaint to include Charlie’s claims.¹⁶

In October 2021, a consent decree filed in Hennepin County District Court resolved the case. CSL Plasma was prohibited from barring donors based solely on gender identity, required to let donors self-identify their gender, and ordered to provide LGBTQ+ equity training to all employees. The company also had to give the MDHR documentation explaining any deferral of a donor whose gender identity differed from their sex assigned at birth or their identification.¹⁷ In 2023, the MDHR announced the consent decree had been completed successfully, finding CSL Plasma no longer discriminated against transgender and non-binary Minnesotans.¹⁶

Pending Employment Case in California

A separate case, Fakira v. CSL Plasma Inc. (Case No. 23CV057131), is pending in Alameda County Superior Court in California. Court records describe it as a class action and PAGA settlement, with a response deadline of December 1, 2025, and a final approval hearing scheduled for March 5, 2026. Available court filings do not detail the specific employment claims.¹⁸

1
Jnswire. Marsh v. CSL Plasma Inc., Motion for Preliminary Approval
2
DataGuidance. Illinois: CSL Plasma Settles Class Action Lawsuit
3
Top Class Actions. CSL Plasma Biometric Data Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
4
Legal Newsline. Judge Grants Final OK to $9.9M Settlement to End Fingerprint Scan Class Action vs CSL Plasma
5
U.S. Department of Justice. Silguero v. CSL Plasma Inc., Court of Appeals Decision
6
Illinois Law Review. Red Blood Sells
7
SCOTUSblog. Silguero v. CSL Plasma Inc.
8
U.S. Department of Justice. Levorsen v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.
9
National Archives – ADA.gov. DOJ Statement of Interest, State of Illinois v. CSL Plasma
10
Illinois Attorney General. Discrimination Lawsuit Against Plasma Collection Company
11
Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul Reaches Settlement With Plasma Collection Company
12
Relman Colfax PLLC. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. CSL Plasma Inc.
13
CSL Plasma. CSL Plasma Resolution With Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
14
KNKX. Transgender Woman Settles Discrimination Lawsuit Against Plasma Center in Kent
15
Keller Rohrback LLP. Lawsuit Challenging For-Profit Plasma Company’s Refusal of Transgender Donor
16
Minnesota Department of Human Rights. CSL Plasma
17
Minnesota Department of Human Rights. MDHR Resolution With CSL Plasma
18
Apex Class Action. Fakira v. CSL Plasma Inc.