Skip to content

RoseAnn Sorce is a recent graduate of the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law joining Rasmussen Dickey Moore’s team of outstanding litigators.

While in law school, RoseAnn interned for the Honorable Judge Joel Fahnestock in the 16th Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, as well as the Missouri State Public Defender’s Office and a small personal injury firm in Chicago. She was the UMKC Law Review Technology Editor.

After receiving her Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism manga cum laudeat the University of Missouri–Columbia, RoseAnn worked in public relations serving engineering firms, municipalities, and real estate firms. During her undergraduate studies, she served as the Phi Mu Sorority Public Relations Chair and Society of Professional Journalists Treasurer.

Outside of work and studies, RoseAnn enjoys working with kids, volunteering as a Big Sister for Big Brothers Big Sisters and as a dance teacher.

The future of litigation.

RoseAnn and the associates at RDM are eager to bring the best possible outcome to your case. Through the mentorship of RDM’s nationally recognized litigators, our talented young associates are poised to be the best in the field.


  • University of Missouri–Kansas City

    Juris Doctor 2021

  • University of Missouri–Columbia

    Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude 2017


  • State of Missouri
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri
  • U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri

RDM's Knowledge Blog Posts by RoseAnn K. Sorce

The Illinois Supreme Court, where the Cothron v. White Castle class action lawsuit over BIPA claims was reviewed in 2023.

Last Fall, an Illinois Court saw the first class action lawsuit brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, an Illinois statute that allows individuals to make a claim against private entities that collect biometric data without first creating a publicly available policy on the data’s retention and destruction, obtaining the individual’s consent, and using reasonable care to protect the information gathered.

Rasmussen Dickey Moore attorneys RoseAnn Sorce and Nathan Lindsey have been following developments in BIPA litigation and the potential effects on Illinois businesses. Nate provided an overview of Illinois’ BIPA statute when it was enacted, and RoseAnn continued with a recap of Rogers vs. BNSF Ry. Co., the first BIPA class action lawsuit.

After the jury found for the plaintiff class in Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co., legal experts expected the $228 million dollar verdict to lead to a flood of BIPA litigation. All eyes then turned to Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., which would answer the question of whether each and every scan or transmission of biometric data constitutes a separate violation of BIPA.

Last month, the Illinois Supreme Court answered “yes” to this question, adding yet another notch in plaintiffs’ belts. 

Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.

On behalf of a class of White Castle employees, White Castle manager Latrina Cothron claimed the fast-food giant violated BIPA when it disclosed employees’ fingerprint scans (obtained in order to grant employees access to their paystubs) to a third-party vendor. In response, White Castle argued that Cothron’s claims were untimely as they accrued in 2008, the very first time she scanned her finger and White Castle obtained her biometric data. White Castle further claimed that a BIPA violation could only accrue once—the first time the biometric data is collected or disclosed—while Cothron argued a new claim accrues each time biometric data is collected or disclosed. The District Court agreed with the Plaintiff, but certified White Castle’s order for immediate interlocutory appeal, moving the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit agreed that “the novelty and uncertainty of the claim-accrual question” warranted certification to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In deciding when a BIPA violation accrues, the Illinois Supreme Court focused on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of BIPA. The Court looked at the statute’s use of the terms “collect” and “capture” and found that the definitions of these terms do not limit the actions to occurring only once. Therefore, the Court decided that each and every collection and subsequent disclosure is a separate violation of BIPA, a decision that has the potential to turn million-dollar claims into billion-dollar claims.

BIPA’s Effects on Illinois Businesses

Cothron v. White Castle’s effect on damage awards is clear. While the Illinois Supreme Court noted that damages are “discretionary rather than mandatory under the Act” and “there is no language in the Act suggesting legislative intent to authorize a damages award that would result in the financial destruction of a business,” the Court provided no guidance to lower courts on how to exercise this discretion. Instead, it called on the legislature to “review these policy concerns and make clear its intent regarding the assessment of damages under the Act.” However, legislative action to amend BIPA may be unlikely, as previous BIPA reform bills never even made it to a vote.

Additionally, the White Castle decision makes it more difficult for defendants to assert a statute of limitations defense. Now, defendants must look to the last collection or use of a plaintiff’s biometric data rather than to the first. In White Castle, this brought Cothron’s claims within the statute of limitations, despite the fact that White Castle first violated BIPA in 2008.

Protecting Your Business from Future BIPA Claims

With catastrophic damage awards made possible by the Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle, some Illinois entities may be dissuaded from using biometric data at all. For businesses that already do collect biometric data, whether for timekeeping or security access, there is no need to stop these practices altogether. Rather, these entities should make a plan to periodically revisit their biometric data collection policies to ensure that they are in compliance with BIPA as it continues to evolve.
Make sure your business has a plan in place. RDM’s Employment and Labor Law Team can review your company policies and help your business ensure compliance with BIPA and other applicable employment laws. Contact us today to discuss how we can help protect your business and your employees from complex and costly litigation.

Jane Bolin, Arabella Mansfield, Belva Lockwood, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

March is Women’s History Month, a time not only to look forward and envision a more equal world for the women that will come after us but also to remember the women that came before us and made it possible for women to be active members of the legal community. 

When I was in law school, it wasn’t uncommon to see women in the legal profession. Many of my professors were women, my classes had a relatively even ratio of women and men, and I interned under a female judge and female attorneys. Now, at Rasmussen Dickey Moore, I work in an office primarily made up of women. I don’t often pause to think back to a time when it was uncommon, or even prohibited, to be a female paralegal, lawyer, law professor, or judge.

However, many women have fought hard to gain a foothold in the legal profession, blazing a trail that provided an opportunity for my peers and me to pursue careers as attorneys and other legal professionals. We still have much work ahead of us to achieve true equity in the field, but several tenacious and undaunted women made great strides that allowed future generations like mine to enter the profession and make our mark.

Arabella Mansfield

Arabella Babb Mansfield was the first woman to pass the bar exam and be admitted to practice law, despite an Iowa state law that limited the practice to white males. Mansfield studied law for two years at her brother’s law office before taking the Iowa bar exam in 1869. She passed with high scores and went on to challenge the law that restricted women from the legal field. Mansfield was successful, and Iowa became the first state in the Union to allow women to practice law. Later in life, Mansfield would go on to be a leader in the women’s suffrage movement.

The National Association of Women Lawyers’ most prestigious award is named for Mansfield, as is the Mansfield Rule, an effort to boost underrepresented groups into leadership positions at over 100 of the nation’s largest law firms.

Belva Ann Lockwood

Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood studied at the National University Law School in Washington, D.C., completing her studies in 1870. However, the school refused to issue a diploma to her and another aspiring female attorney. Undeterred, Lockwood appealed all the way up to President Ulysses Grant, who promptly ordered that she receive her earned diploma.

After attempting to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar in 1876, Lockwood continued to battle for equal rights for women attorneys. President Rutherford B. Hayes signed a law in 1879 that allowed women to become members of the Supreme Court bar. In 1880, Lockwood became the first female lawyer to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Kaiser v. Stickney. Lockwood would return to argue before the Supreme Court in United States v. Cherokee Nation, in which she successfully secured a payment of $1 million plus $4 million in interest—one of the largest judgments in favor of a Native American tribe at the time—for an unfulfilled treaty ceding Cherokee land in Georgia to the U.S.

Lockwood became heavily involved in politics in subsequent years, working towards women’s suffrage, world peace and disarmament, and other progressive causes. She also became the first woman to run for United States president in 1884, decades before the right for women to vote had been secured.

Jane Bolin

During her early years, Jane Bolin was discouraged by a career advisor at her undergraduate institution from applying to Yale Law School due to her race and gender. Nevertheless, Bolin went on to become the first Black woman to obtain a Juris Doctorate from Yale in 1931.

In 1939, she broke another glass ceiling when she became the first Black woman to serve as a judge—and for 20 years, she would remain the only Black female judge in the United States. 

Judge Bolin served four 10-year terms on the bench of the New York City Domestic Relations Court (now known as Family Court) and was noted for working to reform skin-color-based assignments for probation officers and end segregation in child placement facilities, pursuing her goal of demonstrating “a broad sympathy for human suffering.” Both in and out of the courtroom, Bolin worked tirelessly for civil rights and children’s education.

Sandra Day O’Connor

Sandra Day O’Connor eventually rose to the top of the profession, but her early years were met with discrimination not uncommon for the time. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 1952, O’Connor was unable to find a job as a lawyer due to her gender. The only job offer she received was as a legal secretary at a Los Angeles-based firm.

Despite this, she went on to be a deputy county attorney, state senator, trial judge, and federal judge before becoming the first female Supreme Court Justice in 1981 after near-unanimous (99 yes votes and one absence) confirmation by the Senate. Her tenure on the Court would last almost 25 years.

Despite the strides that women have made throughout history, we still have work to do to achieve true equality in the legal profession. According to the American Bar Association, 2014 was the first year that female-identifying first-year law students outnumbered male-identifying first-year law students. By 2022, women accounted for over 55% of all students in ABA-approved law schools.

But while more women are entering law school, the number of women working as lawyers still lags behind. In 1980, just 8% of all lawyers were women. That figure rose to 20% in 1991, 29% in 2000, and now sits at 38% in 2022. Furthermore, women are vastly underrepresented in leadership positions in the legal field. Just 23% of equity partners and 30% of federal judges were women in 2022. 

While the legal profession inches toward equality, it is the duty of every attorney, judge, and legal professional to do their part. It is exciting to see the ranks of law students and lawyers becoming more representative every year. And momentous events such as the appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court provide hope and inspiration for younger generations of women.

However, these advances require thoughtful and deliberate action. At RDM, our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion provides mentorship and opportunities to lift the voices of young female attorneys as we develop a future generation of leaders. Everyone can take these measures—listen to young and diverse voices and help them prepare to take the lead. Be a part of history in the making. 

A biometric scan. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) may allow for many claims against employers using biometric data.

Earlier this year, RDM member Nate Lindsey wrote about the ins and outs of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Enacted in 2008, BIPA allows individuals to make a claim against private entities that collect biometric data without first creating a publicly available policy on the data’s retention and destruction, obtaining the individual’s consent, and using reasonable care to protect the information gathered.

Since that article, Illinois courts have rendered multiple plaintiff-friendly decisions interpreting BIPA, increasing the risk for employers using their employees’ biometric data. Most recently, the first class action lawsuit brought under BIPA—Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co.— was tried and ended in a jury verdict for the plaintiff class, which is expected to open the door for a flood of BIPA claims.

BIPA Creates Complications for Employers

BIPA is a plaintiff-friendly statute, evidenced by both its construction by the legislature and the courts’ interpretations of the Act. As one of just a few laws that afford a private right of action, any individual, whether an employee, customer, or visitor, can bring a claim against a private entity that collects or uses biometric data. Additionally, BIPA does not currently provide a statute of limitations, though the Illinois Supreme Court is set to address this issue in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers.

Most significantly, employees can bring civil claims against their employers who violate BIPA, as the Illinois Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, that such claims are not barred by the Worker’s Compensation exclusivity provisions. Further, the aggrieved individual is not required to show actual injury to recover statutory damages. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that any technical violation of BIPA is a “real and significant injury.”

Combined, these decisions made it easier for employees to bring civil claims against their employers, while simultaneously removing an important defense for employers, setting the stage for Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co.

Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co

In Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co., Richard Rogers brought a BIPA claim against his former employer, BNSF Railway, alleging that the company failed to obtain his and other employees’ consent prior to collecting and storing their fingerprints. However, BNSF itself did not collect or store its employees’ biometric data; rather, it contracted this task out to a third party, Remprex, LLC.

BNSF argued that BIPA legislation did not authorize vicarious liability and filed a motion in limine contending that any argument that it could be held responsible for Remprex’s alleged failure to adhere to BIPA should be excluded. The Northern District of Illinois disagreed, finding that BIPA does not preclude vicarious liability under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. The case advanced to trial and, after just an hour of jury deliberations, ended with a $228 million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff class.

The jury found that BNSF violated BIPA 45,600 times—one time per class member. However, a question remains: is each and every fingerprint scan a violation, or just the initial scan?

For businesses like BNSF that require employees to scan their fingerprints to enter facilities or clock in and out, this may mean multiple violations per employee per day, turning a million-dollar claim into a billion-dollar claim. The issue of when a claim accrues is set to be addressed by the Illinois Supreme court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.

Implications for Illinois Businesses

As Rogers was the first case involving BIPA claims to go to trial and end in a plaintiff verdict, employers should expect to see an increase in BIPA claims brought by employees.

With this looming increase in lawsuits and potentially billions of dollars at stake, some insurers are attempting to avoid coverage by invoking certain exclusions in general liability policies, namely the Employment-Related Practices Exclusion, the Distribution of Material in Violation of Statutes Exclusion, and the Access or Disclosure of Confidential or Personal Information Exclusion. Decisions interpreting the applicability of these exclusions are inconsistent, and there has yet to be guidance from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Some insurers are also looking to add BIPA-specific exclusions to their policies.

In an uncertain and rapidly changing landscape, the best way to avoid liability and coverage issues is compliance. Entities that collect or use biometric data should ensure that their policies and procedures are up to date. The attorneys at Rasmussen Dickey Moore can help create and implement a policy on your company’s collection, use, and destruction of biometric data to keep your business compliant with evolving laws and out of the courtroom.