Williams v. JRN, Inc., 3:22-cv-01253

Plaintiff D’Lisa Williams sued her former employer JRN, Inc., alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for collecting and storing employee fingerprints via a timeclock without informed written consent.
JRN operates restaurant franchises in the Midwest, and Williams worked for JRN from 2008 to 2021 in Illinois, using the fingerprint-based timeclock since around 2015.
Williams seeks to represent a class of similarly situated employees whose biometric data was collected without proper notice or consent.
JRN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing several legal defenses including statute of limitations, laches, assumption of risk, failure to plead culpable conduct, due process, and lack of standing for injunctive relief.
The motion was filed after relevant controlling Illinois Supreme Court decisions (Tims and Cothron) clarified BIPA’s statutory limitations and accrual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claims pre-2019 (Rosenbach II)	Claims accrue when violation occurs, regardless of later case law	No claim accrued prior to 2019 under unsettled law	Denied—Violations are actionable since BIPA's enactment
Laches (unreasonable delay)	Suit was timely; laches defense is fact-driven	Williams delayed asserting claims to JRN's prejudice	Denied—Delay not established on face of complaint
Assumption of risk / Implied consent	BIPA requires explicit written consent, not implied	Continued use of the timeclock = implied consent	Denied—BIPA requires written notice and release
Failure to plead negligent/reckless/intentional conduct	Mental state not necessary at this stage, just the violation	Must plead facts supporting alleged culpable conduct	Denied—Mental state affects remedy, not plausibility of claim
Due process/excessive fines	Damages issue premature	Statutory damages without injury would be unconstitutional	Denied—Damages determination not ripe at dismissal stage
Standing for declaratory/injunctive relief	Remedy decision, not basis for dismissal	No threat of future injury as Williams no longer employed	Granted—No standing for prospective injunctive/declaratory

Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019) (technical BIPA violations are actionable, clarifying standing for statutory claims)
Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2020) (individual rights under BIPA and class standing)
West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 183 N.E.3d 47 (Ill. 2021) (BIPA as an informed consent statute)
Tims v. Black Horse Motor Carriers, Inc., 216 N.E.3d 845 (Ill. 2023) (five-year statute of limitations for BIPA claims)
Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., 216 N.E.3d 918 (Ill. 2023) (claims accrue with each unauthorized scan or use)
Simic v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2017) (standing for injunctive relief requires ongoing risk of future harm)