Jury Demand in Kisha Williams-vs-BJC Healthcare ACO, LLC| Trellis.Law

On September 01, 2023 a Jury Demand was filed involving a dispute between Williams, Kisha, and Bjc Healthcare Aco, Llc, for Class Actions in the District Court of Cook County.

Preview
Hearing Date: 1/2/2024 9:30 AM FILED
Location: Court Room 2408 12-Person Jury 9/1/2023 10:32 AM
Judge: Conlon, Alison C IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH07896
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Calendar, 4
24214756
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

KISHA WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly Case No. 2023CH07896
situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v. Jury Trial Demanded

BJC HEALTHCARE ACO, LLC,

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Kisha Williams (“Plaintiff”), by her undersigned attorneys, on her own behalf

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own

acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, brings this Class Action Complaint

against BJC Healthcare ACO, LLC (“Defendant”) for its violations of Plaintiff’s privacy rights

guaranteed under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, 410 Illinois Compiled Statute

(“ILCS”) 513 et seq. (hereinafter “GIPA”), and allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Unlocking the human genetic code came with it the potential for hitherto

unfathomable medical development. It permitted individuals to learn in detail the possibilities that

were hidden within their genome. For the first time, women can now learn whether they are

predisposed to get breast cancer; families can trace their genetic lineage back thousands of years,

and law enforcement can use DNA samples to identify criminals.

2. However, all of this information can only be obtained if people are willing to allow

sharing of genetic information, and that is only possible if people know that their genetic
information will not be used against them in future employment, insurance or other situations. For
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

example, few women would want to learn about a predisposition to breast cancer if that meant that

they could be barred from certain jobs or prevented from obtaining life insurance.

3. The Illinois Legislature enacted GIPA in 1998 with the goal to protect Illinois

residents from having their genetic information being used against them in employment settings.

4. Consistent with this goal, GIPA provides strong legal protections to ensure that

Illinois residents can take advantage of the knowledge that can be gained from obtaining personal

genetic information, without fear that this same information could be used by employers to

discriminate against them.

5. Among its other valuable protections, GIPA prohibits employers from learning or

using genetic information in making employment decisions. GIPA bars employers from asking

about employees or potential employees’ genetic information, prevents employers from obtaining

this information from third parties, and forbids employers from using such information to affect

the terms and conditions of employment.

6. To accomplish this goal, GIPA employs a comprehensive definition of “genetic

information” that includes information regarding an individual’s family medical history.

7. Despite GIPA’s prohibitions, some companies in Illinois still ask their employees

or applicants to provide protected family medical history when making hiring determinations and

job assignments in blatant violation of the law.

8. Defendant chose to repeatedly disregard Illinois’ genetic privacy laws by asking its

employees to provide genetic information in the form of family medical history to assist the

company in making employment decisions.

2
9. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself, and all of Defendant’s other
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

similarly situated employees in the state, an order: (i) requiring Defendant to cease the unlawful

activities discussed herein; and (ii) awarding actual and/or statutory damages to Plaintiff and the

members of the proposed Class.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Kisha Williams is and was at all relevant times of employment with

Defendant, an individual citizen of the State of Illinois. Ms. Williams currently resides in

Centreville, Illinois.

11. Defendant BJC Healthcare ACO, LLC is a Missouri corporation headquartered in

St. Louis, Missouri. The company operates a network of health care facilities across multiple

states, including Illinois. Defendant is a major employer in the state of Illinois with hundreds of

employees across numerous facilities operated throughout the state, including 4500 Memorial

Drive, Belleville, IL 62226 (the “Belleville Facility”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209 of the

Illinois Code of Civil Procedure because Defendant conducts business transactions in Illinois and

has committed tortious acts in Illinois.

13. Venue is proper in Cook County because Defendant operates throughout this

County and “resides” in Cook County within the meaning of 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a).

ILLINOIS GENETIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT (“GIPA”)

14. During the 1990s, the U.S. government poured billions of dollars into the Human

Genome Project in an attempt to map the entire human genetic code. When President Clinton

announced the first successful “rough draft” of the Project in 2000, he hailed it as one of the great

3
achievements of human history, and said: “Today we are learning the language with which God
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

created life[.]”1

15. However, like any great leap in human understanding, learning the meaning of

people’s genetics came with many concerns. One movie released around this time, the dystopian

science fiction movie Gattaca, attempted to show how this new technology could be abused. The

movie conjured a not-too-distant future where genetic discrimination was rampant. In the movie,

companies segregated people based on their genetic profiles, those with better genetic profiles (i.e.,

genetically engineered humans) were eligible for professional employment, while others with less

desirable genetics (e.g., susceptibility to heart disease or cancer) were unemployable or relegated

to menial jobs. Since its release, the film has been regularly used in schools to show the possible

misuses of genetic information.2

16. Illinois stood at the forefront of protecting its citizens from the abuse of this

technology when it first passed GIPA in 1998. According to the Illinois Legislature, the intent of

GIPA is to protect an individual from their genetic information (such as family medical history)

being used against them in a discriminatory manner. Limiting the use or requests for protected

genetic information is a key component of health information privacy. 410 ILCS 513/5(1)-(5).

17. The Illinois Legislature amended GIPA in 2008 to increase its protections and

harmonize Illinois state law with the then-recently passed Federal Genetic Information

Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”), 110 P.L. 233; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff. The 2008

1
Scientists Complete Rough Draft of Human Genome (N.Y. Times June 26, 2000) available at
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/062600sci-human-genome.html?amp;sq=
francis%252520collins&st=cse&scp=23.
2
What Do People Who Work in Genetics Think About Gattaca 25 Years After Its Release (Slate Aug. 15, 2022)
available at https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/gattaca-25th-anniversary-genetics-crispr.html.

4
amendments to GIPA sought to further prohibit discriminatory practices of employers through the
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

use of genetic information of employees, including such employees’ family medical history.

18. During discussions of the 2008 GIPA amendments, the Illinois Legislature

recognized the importance of safeguarding family medical history due to the fact that it is akin to

knowledge of genetic predispositions:

I hope the [legislature] understands the importance of [family
medical history]; it’s becoming more and more important. Back in
‘96 or ‘97, I had a third generation ovarian cancer survivor that came
to me with this issue. … If a woman has … the gene that causes
breast cancer, she can have up to an 84 percent probability that she
will develop breast cancer sometime in her life … it’s important that
we help people be able to know that information and know they
won’t be discriminated against in their employment …. Quite
honestly, with genetic information we have today, we could identify
a pool of people that … no one would want to employ. [GIPA] helps
guarantee that we don’t have that kind of discrimination occur.

Illinois House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276, pp. 33-34.

19. To accomplish the Illinois Legislature’s goal of ensuring that genetic information

is not used to discriminate against employees, GIPA adopted Congress’ definition of “genetic

information” that includes not just the narrow results of an individual’s genetic tests, but also

information regarding “[t]he manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such

individual[.]” 410 ILCS 513/10; see 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

20. GIPA bars employers from directly or indirectly requesting or using genetic

information in hiring, firing, demoting, or in determining work assignment or classifications of

applicants or employees. Specifically, GIPA states: “An employer … shall not directly or

indirectly do any of the following:

(1) solicit, request, require or purchase genetic testing or genetic
information of a person or a family member of the person, … as a
condition of employment, preemployment application…;

5
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

(2) affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
preemployment application, … or terminate the employment, … of
any person because of genetic testing or genetic information with
respect to the employee or family member…;

(3) limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way that would
deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the
employee as an employee because of genetic testing or genetic
information with respect to the employee or a family member, …;
and

(4) retaliate through discharge or in any other manner against any
person alleging a violation of this Act or participating in any manner
in a proceeding under this Act.

410 Ill. Comp. Stat. 513/25(c). Nor may an employer or prospective employer enter into an

agreement with a person to take a genetic test. 410 ILCS 513/25(d).

21. Even if an employer otherwise obtains genetic information lawfully, it still may not

use or disclose the genetic information in violation of GIPA. 410 ILCS 513/25(j).

22. In order to enforce these and other requirements, GIPA provides individuals with a

broad private right of action, stating: “Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act shall have

a right of action … against an offending party.” 410 ILCS 513/40(a). Under this private right of

action, a party may recover, for each violation: (a) $2,500 or actual damages, whichever is greater,

for a negligent violation, or $15,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for a willful violation;

(b) reasonable attorneys’ fees; and (c) “[s]uch other relief, including an injunction, as the … court

may deem appropriate.” Id.

23. Plaintiff is not required to allege or prove actual damages in order to state a claim

under GIPA, and they can seek statutory damages under GIPA as compensation for the injuries

caused by Defendant. See Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019 IL 123186, at ¶ 40, 432 Ill.

6
Dec. 654, 129 N.E.3d 1197 (holding by the Illinois Supreme Court that “an individual need not
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under [the Illinois

Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”)] in order to qualify as an ‘aggrieved person’ under BIPA); see

also Bridges v. Blackstone Grp., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121205, at *8 (S. D. Ill. July 8, 2022)

(holding that it is appropriate to apply BIPA’s definition of “aggrieved person” used by the

Rosenbach court to alleged violations of GIPA).

24. Thus, GIPA provides valuable privacy rights, protections, and benefits to the

citizens of Illinois and provides those citizens with the means to aggressively enforce those rights.

PLAINTIFF SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

PLAINTIFF KISHA WILLIAMS

25. Plaintiff submitted an application to Defendant for the position of Patient Care

Technician at the Belleville Facility in or around May 2023.

26. In or around May 2023, during the application and hiring process, Defendant

directly or indirectly solicited, requested, or required Ms. Williams to disclose her genetic

information in the form of diseases and conditions that had manifested in her family members as

a condition of employment.

27. Specifically, in or around May 2023, an individual who upon information and belief

was an employee of Defendant directly solicited, requested, or required Ms. Williams to disclose

her family medical history during an interview. As part of the hiring process, Ms. Williams was

required to meet with Defendant’s employee at the Belleville Facility for the interview. During the

interview, Defendant’s employee verbally asked Ms. Williams questions about her family medical

history, including whether medical conditions with genetic predispositions has manifested in her

parents, including cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments. When asking these

7
questions, Defendant’s employee had a file in front of them on their desk and made handwritten
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

notes on the papers in the file as they asked these questions.

28. In response, Ms. Williams disclosed genetic information, including conditions that

her family members had been diagnosed with. Ms. Williams would not have volunteered her

family members’ medical histories if Defendant’s employee had not asked Ms. Williams to do so.

29. This interview was a condition of employment and/or preemployment application

because Defendant required Ms. Williams to attend this interview in order to be hired.

30. Also, in or around June 2023, Ms. Williams was required to submit to a pre-

employment physical as a requirement of the hiring process. The physical was conducted by a

medical provider at the Belleville Facility, who upon information and belief was an employee of

Defendant. During the physical, the provider verbally requested Ms. Williams to disclose her

family medical history, including whether medical conditions with genetic predispositions has

manifested in her parents, including cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments.

31. During the physical, the provider gave Ms. Williams a written questionnaire and

requested Ms. Williams to provide responses to the questions therein. The questionnaire asked Ms.

Williams to disclose whether various diseases or disorders with a genetic predisposition had

manifested in her family members, including whether Ms. Williams’s parents had a history of

cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments.

32. After completing the paperwork, Ms. Williams met with the provider one-on-one

in a physical examination room within the provider’s medical offices. During this examination,

the provider tested Ms. Williams’s eyesight and the flexibility of various body parts. After

completing the physical portions of the examination, the provider verbally asked Ms. Williams

questions about her medical conditions and history. When asking these questions, the provider had

8
a file in front of them on their desk and made handwritten notes on the papers in the file as they
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

asked these questions.

33. Among other questions, the provider verbally asked Ms. Williams to provide her

family medical history. The provider listed various medical conditions and asked Ms. Williams to

respond by stating whether Ms. Williams had any of those conditions, or whether any family

members on Ms. Williams’s maternal or paternal bloodlines had these conditions. These medical

conditions included cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments.

34. In response, Ms. Williams disclosed genetic information, including her family

members’ medical histories. Ms. Williams would not have volunteered her genetic information if

the provider had not asked Ms. Williams to do so.

35. Ms. Williams was not directed by the provider or Defendant, either verbally or in

writing, to not disclose the solicited genetic information. Nor did Ms. Williams provide prior,

knowing, voluntary, and written authorization to Defendant for the use of her genetic information

in furtherance of a workplace wellness program.

36. The physical was a condition of employment and/or preemployment application

because Defendant required Ms. Williams to attend this physical in order to be hired.

37. Ms. Williams was required to disclose her genetic information at the interview and

the physical as a condition of employment with Defendant.

38. Ms. Williams’s hiring was conditioned upon successful completion of the physical

and the interview, which required her providing her genetic information to Defendant and the

provider.

9
39. Ms. Williams was hired by Defendant as a Patient Care Technician after completing
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

all required steps in the hiring process. Ms. Williams was employed by Defendant at the Belleville

Facility from on or about June 15, 2023 through on or about July 15, 2023.

DEFENDANT VIOLATES GIPA AS A MATTER OF COURSE

40. Based on Plaintiff’s experiences, she believes that, during the hiring process,

Defendant asks employees and/or prospective employees to provide family medical histories as a

condition of employment and/or as part of its hiring process.

41. Plaintiff understands, on information and belief, that Defendant, or agents on its

behalf, requests this family medical history information for the purpose of evaluating the risk that

the individual may have inherited genetic conditions from family members, and then improperly

uses that information when making its hiring decisions and staffing assignments.

42. On information and belief, Defendant requests this family medical history

information as part of an effort to avoid risk and/or liability for workplace injuries and/or deaths

caused by genetic conditions, including but not limited to hypertension, cancer, heart conditions,

diabetes, and stroke, which Defendant believes could be inherited and that could be exacerbated

by workplace conditions, especially if these conditions are high-stress and/or physically

demanding.

43. Defendant was or should have been aware of its obligations under GIPA.

Nevertheless, Defendant intentionally and/or recklessly captured, collected, and/or retained

Plaintiff’s genetic information in the form of her family medical history in violation of Illinois law.

44. As a result, Defendant’s violations were willful because it knew, or reasonably

should have known, that it was failing to comply with the above-described requirements of GIPA.

10
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

45. Proposed Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant 735 ILCS 5/2-801

on behalf of herself and the following class (the “Class”) of similarly situated individuals, defined

as follows:

46. The Class brought by Plaintiff consists of:

All individuals in Illinois, from the date within five years prior to
the filing of this action, (1) who applied for employment with
Defendant or were employed by Defendant, and (2) from whom
Defendant, or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant, requested
and/or obtained genetic information, including family medical
history, in connection with the person’s application for employment
or the person’s employment with Defendant.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant’s officers and directors, Plaintiff’s counsel, and any

member of the judiciary presiding over this action.

47. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify this class definition as they obtain relevant

information, including employment records, through discovery.

48. Numerosity: The exact number of class members is unknown and is not available

to Plaintiff at this time, but Defendant employs over 1,000 people in Illinois, and it is believed that

all or most of those individuals will fall within the proposed Class. It is further believed that there

are at least 100 individuals that meet the class definition. Therefore, it is clear that individual

joinder in this case is impracticable. Proposed Class members can easily be identified through

Defendant’s employment records.

49. Common Questions: There are several questions of law and fact common to the

claims of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, and those questions predominate over any

questions that may affect individual proposed Class members. Common questions include, but are

not limited to, the following:

11
a. whether Defendant, or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant, solicited,
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

requested, captured or collected family medical history of prospective
employees;

b. whether Defendant, or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant, solicited,
requested, captured or collected family medical history of existing employees;

c. whether Defendant obtained genetic information from Plaintiff and the Class
by asking for family medical history; and

d. whether Defendant’s solicitation, request, collection, or use of genetic
information constituted a violation of GIPA.

50. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the proposed Class

members. Plaintiff would only seek individual or actual damages if class certification is denied. In

addition, Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the same causes of action and upon the same facts as

the other members of the proposed Class.

51. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and

protect the interests of the Class and has retained competent counsel experienced in complex

litigation and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class,

and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.

52. Superiority: Class proceedings are also superior to all other available methods for

the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all parties is impracticable.

Even if proposed Class members were able or willing to pursue such individual litigation, a class

action would still be preferable given that a multiplicity of individual actions would likely increase

the expense and time of litigation in light of the complex legal and factual controversies presented

in this Class Action Complaint. A class action, on the other hand, provides the benefits of fewer

management difficulties, single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision

before a single court, and would result in reduced time, effort and expense for all parties and the

Court, and ultimately, the uniformity of decisions.

12
COUNT I
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

VIOLATION OF 410 ILCS 513/25
SOLICIT, REQUEST, AND/OR REQUIRE GENETIC INFORMATION OF A PERSON
OR A FAMILY MEMBER OF A PERSON AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR
PRE-EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION

53. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

54. Defendant is a corporation that directly or indirectly employs individuals within the

State of Illinois and therefore meets the definition of an “employer” under 410 ILCS 513/10.

55. Family medical history includes the “manifestation or possible manifestation of a

disease or disorder in a family member of [an] individual” and is incorporated into the definition

of “genetic information” under 410 ILCS 513/10 and 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

56. Plaintiff was individually asked to provide, and did provide, her family medical

history as a condition of employment during the application and hiring process to work for

Defendant.

57. Defendant, or an agent acting on its behalf, solicited, requested, or required Plaintiff

to disclose family medical history as a condition of employment during the application and hiring

process to work for Defendant.

58. Defendant indirectly solicited or requested Plaintiff to disclose her family medical

history in the form of medical conditions with a genetic predisposition which had manifested in

her parents, including cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, during a pre-employment interview and

physical as a condition of employment during the application and hiring process to work for

Defendant.

59. Defendant failed to direct Plaintiff, either verbally or in writing, not to provide

genetic information when requested to provide her family medical history.

13
60. Plaintiff and the proposed Class members were aggrieved by Defendant’s
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

violations of their statutorily protected rights to privacy in their genetic information, as set forth in

GIPA, when Defendant directly or indirectly solicited or requested them to disclose their genetic

information as a condition of ongoing employment or a condition of a pre-employment application.

61. By indirectly or directly soliciting or requesting Plaintiff and the proposed Class

members to provide their genetic information as described herein, Defendant violated Plaintiff’s

and the proposed Class members’ rights to privacy in their genetic information as set forth in

GIPA.

62. Because Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that soliciting or

requesting family medical history from an employee in Illinois violated GIPA, its actions in

violating GIPA were willful.

63. On behalf of themselves and the proposed Class members, Plaintiff seeks:

(1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of

Plaintiff and the proposed Class by requiring Defendant to comply with GIPA as described herein;

(3) statutory damages of $15,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each intentional

and/or reckless violation of GIPA pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(2) or, in the alternative, statutory

damages of $2,500 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each negligent violation of GIPA

pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(1); and (4) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other litigation

expenses pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(3).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class of similarly situated

individuals, prays for an Order as follows:

14
A. Finding this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set
FILED DATE: 9/1/2023 10:32 AM 2023CH07896

forth in 735 ILCS 5/2-801 and certifying the proposed Class as defined herein;

B. Designating and appointing Plaintiff as representative of the proposed Class and
Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

C. Declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set forth above, violate GIPA;

D. Awarding Plaintiff and the proposed Class members statutory damages of $15,000
or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each intentional and/or reckless
violation of GIPA pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(2), or statutory damages of $2,500
or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each negligent violation of GIPA
pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(1);

E. Declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set forth above, were intentional or reckless
and/or declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set forth above, were negligent;

F. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the
interests of Plaintiff and the proposed Class, including an Order prohibiting
Defendant from soliciting, requesting and/or requiring genetic information as a
condition of employment or in a pre-employment application pursuant to GIPA;

G. Awarding Plaintiff and the proposed Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs incurred in this litigation pursuant to 410 ILCS 513/40(3);

H. Awarding Plaintiff and the proposed Class pre- and post-judgment interest, to the
extent allowable; and

I. Granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Edward Wallace
Edward A. Wallace
Mark R. Miller
Molly C. Wells
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
T. (312) 261-6193

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Jury Demand: Kisha Williams-vs-BJC Healthcare ACO, LLC

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Jury Demand: Kisha Williams-vs-BJC Healthcare ACO, LLC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties