Juan Barron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paycor, Inc.

Barron v. Paycor · United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois · March 18, 2026 · No. 3:20-cv-264-DWD

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled on Plaintiff Juan Barron's motion for approval of a class notice and notice plan in a class action against Paycor, Inc. alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The court approved notice by first-class mail, email when available, and a case-specific website, and allowed specified revisions to the proposed notice. The motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

  1. Notice by first-class U.S. mail, email when available, and publication on a case-specific website, using Paycor's class lists and address-update procedures, complied with the manner-of-notice requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
  2. The proposed notice complied with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and was appropriate, subject to the court's specified revisions concerning the notice's introductory language, description of the lawsuit and class, effect of the litigation, status of the claims, counsel, and methods for obtaining information.
  3. The requested class-list relief was granted in full only in the event Paycor's existing class list did not contain the full names, most recent mailing addresses, and available email addresses of all potential class members; otherwise, further production was unnecessary because Paycor had already tendered class lists.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proposed methods of class notice—first-class mail, email where available, and publication on a case-specific website—satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).
  2. Whether the proposed class notice was sufficiently clear, accurate, and appropriate regarding the nature of the BIPA claims, Paycor's defenses, the effect of remaining in the class, attorney fees and costs, and methods of obtaining additional information.
  3. Whether the court should require Paycor to produce a class list containing the requested identifying and contact information.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Kolinek v. Walgreen Co., 311 F.R.D. 483, 499 (N.D. Ill. 2015)(followed)
  • Yates v. Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc., No. 17-cv-9219, 2020 WL 6447196, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020)(followed)
  • Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank, 805 F. Supp. 2d 560, 595 (N.D. Ill. 2011)(followed)
  • Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 231-232 (S.D. Ill. 2001)(followed)
  • Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 404, 406 (N.D. Ill. 2012)(followed)
  • Reynolds v. Nat'l Football League, 584 F.2d 280, 285 (8th Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 787 F.2d 828, 833 (2d Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • T.K. Through Leshore v. Bytedance Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 19-cv-7915, 2022 WL 888943, at *8-9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2022)(followed)
  • Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc., 338 F. Supp. 3d 815, 820 (N.D. Ill. 2018)(followed)
  • Phillips Petrol. Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 809-810 (1985)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…