Skip to content

During the summer of 2023, Rasmussen Dickey Moore was delighted to welcome Megan Smith to our Kansas City office as a summer associate. Megan finished her 1L year at Vermont Law and Graduate School, returned to her Metro Kansas City home for the summer, and will resume her law studies as a 2L at the University of Cincinnati School of Law. 

Megan is a lifelong Kansan, growing up in Leawood, just across State Line Road from RDM’s Kansas City, Missouri, headquarters. 

Majoring in Environmental Studies and minoring in Political Science at the University of Kansas, Megan was an active member of Kappa Delta Sorority, serving on the chapter’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee as the liaison to the sorority’s Vice President of Public Relations. 

Megan plans to continue her environmental education by pursuing a career in environmental law. At Vermont Law and Graduate School, Megan served as a 1L Senator with the Environmental Law Society

This summer, Megan researched law in many fields, including contract law, tort law, and environmental law. “One of the many things ingrained in my memory during the first year of law school was the importance of legal research and writing,” says Megan. Her summer associate position provided extensive opportunities to draft motions, memos, and reports for the attorneys at RDM.  

“The opportunity to apply the knowledge I gained from my 1L year has been amazing, and I have been able to do it in so many different ways. So far this summer, I have worked with documents such as depositions, trial testimony transcripts, studies, cases, and pleadings. Being in meetings with attorneys and paralegals to learn more about what truly goes into crafting a defense or substantiating a claim has been really interesting to see.” 

Megan’s biggest project during her summer at RDM is to research and prepare a report about an environmental dispute that lasted from the late 1960s and into the 1970s regarding water pollution. This dispute put the federal government, state governments and agencies, and environmental groups at odds. “This project has been so interesting,” says Megan, “and it has shown me how important it is to truly understand the history and science behind statutes, cases, and regulations.” 

In addition to helping the attorneys with their work, Megan also prepared two presentations about the confidentiality requirements regarding court filings becoming publicly available on The opportunity helped her to get out of her comfort zone and learn more about the responsibilities and requirements of being a lawyer. 

“I have really enjoyed my summer here at RDM, and can’t wait to see where the rest of my time here takes me!” Thank you, Megan, for a job well done this summer, and best wishes in your 2L classes! 

The gears of a well-oiled machine.

A few years ago, I wrote a thank you note in recognition of not only Administrative Professionals’ Day generally, but to RDM’s very own administrative professionals. Since that time, we have seen a global pandemic, an upheaval in the way people view their work/life balance, and a call to realign corporate viewpoints vis-à-vis employees.

Through it all, administrative professionals continue to make the world go round. It is no small feat under normal circumstances to make businesses run, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, they provided critical support for customers, clients, vendors, and a host of other people. To top it off, they are performing all of it from remote locations under challenging circumstances.

But administrative professionals do far more than make sure offices operate smoothly and deadlines are met. They are the front line for customer service, the caretakers of the back-office workings, and critical teammates in running a successful business. It is through their efforts that businesses flourish. Administrative professionals are so much more than employees—they are key partners in a company’s overall success.

So today, as we celebrate Administrative Professionals’ Day, please remember that their success is your success. Be appreciative for all that they do and all the assistance they provide. Their contributions are the backbone of any prosperous business. With the utmost gratitude from RDM, we thank each and every administrative professional for all that you do on this Administrative Professionals’ Day!

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. 

Recreational marijuana sales have begun in Missouri.

Recreational marijuana sales have started in Missouri following the passage of Amendment 3, shaking up the landscape for drug enforcement policies in Missouri as some employer actions in relation to employee use of marijuana are now prohibited by law.

Beyond making recreational use legal for those 21 years and older, Amendment 3 included new protections for medical marijuana cardholders prohibiting employers from discriminating or taking adverse action against an employee for off-employment site use of marijuana during non-work hours or testing positive for marijuana. This provision aligns with the protections other states have incorporated for medical marijuana users. For example, in Massachusetts and Connecticut, employers must have reasonable accommodations for medical marijuana patients. See Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, 78 N.E.3d 37 (Mass. 2017), and see Conn. Gen. Stat. §21a-408p; Del. Code tit. 16, §4905A

Despite these protections, Missouri’s Amendment 3 still allows an employer to enforce a drug-free policy if the failure to enforce a policy results in monetary or licensing-related benefits under federal law. In addition, employers can also enforce a drug-free policy if the use of marijuana would impair the employee’s ability to perform job-related responsibilities, impair the safety of others, or conflict with occupational qualifications related to employment.

Notably, there are no further protections for recreational marijuana users without medical cards, meaning employees seeking these protections should ensure they have valid medical cards. Employers may still generally enforce drug-free policies against employees who are not medical card holders. Likewise, there is no change to an employer’s ability to terminate an employee who is under the influence of marijuana while at work. However, given the lack of reliable testing to measure recent marijuana use or impairment, employers should use caution.

Amendment 3 also included language allowing for certain marijuana-related criminal offenses to be expunged. Misdemeanor marijuana offenses are set to automatically be expunged by the courts, while felony convictions of possession of up to three pounds of marijuana are to be expunged within a year. In cases of possession of more than three pounds, the person seeking expungement must personally petition the court, but only after they have completed a sentence, probation, or parole period. There has been some skepticism regarding the ability of courts to meet these deadlines, and a supplemental budget has been requested to pay the state’s court clerks overtime to review.

Missouri employers should evaluate their current drug testing policies and practices to ensure they are in line with the new protections for medical marijuana cardholders adopted after the passage of Amendment 3. Policies related to impairment while at work should also be evaluated and documented if they are not. Rasmussen Dickey Moore’s employment attorneys closely watch new laws that affect Missouri employers. Call on us to ensure your employment policies are compliant with new recreational marijuana laws to make sure that you, your business, and your employees are protected.