Latrina Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., No. 20-3202 (7th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Cothron works at an Illinois White Castle restaurant where she must scan her fingerprint to access the computer system. With each scan, her fingerprint is collected and transmitted to a third-party vendor for authentication. Cothron alleges that White Castle did not obtain her written consent before implementing the fingerprint-scanning system, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, arguing that every unauthorized fingerprint scan amounted to a separate violation of the statute, so a new claim accrued with each scan.
On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court, which responded that claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, not only upon the first scan and first transmission.

The Seventh Circuit then lifted a stay and affirmed the denial of White Castle’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court rejected White Castle’s request to expand the interlocutory appeal to include new questions concerning the scope of a possible damages award and Due Process and Excessive Fines Clause claims. The order before the court concerned only the timeliness of Cothron’s suit.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 20, 2021.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-3202 LATRINA COTHRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 19 CV 00382 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED AUGUST 14, 2023 — DECIDED AUGUST 23, 2023 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. and EASTERBROOK and SYKES, Chief Judge. In December 2018 Latrina Cothron filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in Illinois state court against White Castle System, Inc., her employer. For many years Cothron has worked as a manager at one of White Castle’s hamburger restaurants in Illinois; her suit accuses the company of violating the Illinois Biometric Information 2 No. 20-3202 Privacy Act, 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/1 et seq., by failing to obtain her written consent before implementing a fingerprint-scanning system that requires her to scan her fingerprints to access her work computer and payment records. White Castle removed the case to federal court and later sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Cothron’s suit was untimely because her claim accrued in 2008 with her first fingerprint scan after the Act’s effective date. Cothron countered that a new claim accrued with each fingerprint scan—not just the first one—so her suit was timely with respect to any scans without her consent that occurred within the limitations period. The district judge agreed with Cothron’s claim-accrual theory and denied the motion, but he certified his order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because the order involved a controlling question of law on which there was substantial ground for disagreement, we accepted the interlocutory appeal. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 20 F.4th 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 2021). Following oral argument, we certified the novel timeliness question—namely, whether a claim accrues under the Act with each unlawful biometric scan or only the first one— to the Illinois Supreme Court. Id. at 1166–67. The state supreme court accepted the certification and has now answered the question, holding that “a separate claim accrues under the Act each time a private entity scans or transmits an individual’s biometric identifier or information in violation of section 15(b) or 15(d)” of the Act. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 WL 4567389, at *1 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023) as modified on denial of reh’g (July 18, 2023). No. 20-3202 3 After denying White Castle’s motion for rehearing, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its mandate on August 22. In the meantime we had directed the parties to file position statements under Circuit Rule 52(b). They have done so. Cothron asks us to lift the stay in this case and enter an order consistent with the state supreme court’s answer to the certified question. White Castle asks us to expand the interlocutory appeal to include new questions concerning the scope of a possible damages award and constitutional arguments under the Due Process and Excessive Fines Clauses. The order before us concerned only the timeliness of Cothron’s suit. The Illinois Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question makes it clear that the suit is timely with respect to some of the allegedly unlawful fingerprint scans. That resolves this appeal. Accordingly, we lift the stay and affirm the district court’s order denying White Castle’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. AFFIRMED

Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit addresses the issue of when claims accrue under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. A new claim accrues with each unlawful scan and each unlawful transmission of biometric information.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.