Johns v. Paycor, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JUAN BARRON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PAYCOR, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:20-cv-264-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval of a Class Notice and
Notice Plan. (Doc. 181). Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to, and Plaintiff filed a
Reply in Support of, that Motion. (Sealed Doc. 186; Docs. 187 & 194). For the reasons
explained below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
On February 16, 2026, the Court altered and amended the definition of the
previously certified class to include the following:
All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints
or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained
or disclosed by Defendant’s Perform Time biometric timekeeping system
during the applicable statutory period.
(Doc. 277, generally).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), Plaintiff requests an order for
the following: (1) Defendant to compile and produce, within 7 days, a class list that
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
contains the full names, most recent mailing addresses, and email addresses, if available,
of potential class members; and (2) approves a class notice and notice plan. (Doc. 181).1
1The Court notes, as to the compilation and production of a class list, that issue may have been
resolved by the efforts of the Court and parties. On August 14, 2025, the Court entered the following Order:
ORDER. Consistent with its reasoning at the Status Conference held on August 13, 2025,
the Court directs Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs, within 10 days of this date, two lists
containing the names and addresses of potential class members in this action. More
specifically, as discussed at that Status Conference, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiffs:
(1) a list containing the names and addresses of the approximately 2,968 potential class
members identified by Defendant; and (2) a list containing the names and addresses of the
approximately 15,168 potential class members that are reflected in an Excel spreadsheet
and related to the deposition of Mr. Mitri Dahdaly. The Court emphasizes, as it did on the
record at the Status Conference, that the production of these lists, without further delay or
unilateral narrowing by Defendant, will help to facilitate notice to all potential class
members. Decisions regarding actual class members will be made at a later date.
(Doc. 210) (Emphasis in original omitted).
After Defendant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Argument in Briefs on Pending Motions, including
the Motion addressed in this Memorandum & Order, the Court entered an Order that, in part, stated:
As a substantive matter, Plaintiff Barron’s Motion for Court Approval of Class Notice and
Notice Plan and Defendant’s Motion to Alter/Amend the Class Definition are currently
pending on the docket. (Docs. 181 & 188). In its instant filings, however, Defendant notifies
the Court that it is withdrawing an argument made in relation to those two pending
Motions, namely, the argument that the class notice should be limited to only 2,968
individuals rather than approximately 16,546 individuals. (Sealed Doc. 212; Doc. 213).
Defendant indicates “additional information recently came to light that impacts th[at]
argument.” (Sealed Doc. 212, pg. 1; Doc. 213, pg. 1). Defendant also requests to file a Second
Supplemental Declaration of David Goodwin, under seal, to “explain in detail a
miscommunication about the databases and datasets Paycor used to generate a list of 2,986
unique employee IDS.” (Doc. 211, pg. 1). Put another way, Defendant seeks to “more fully
explain[] the dataset” resulting in the withdrawal of its argument. (Sealed Docs. 212 & 212-
1; Doc. 213). For good cause shown, that request, which is contained in the Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 211), is GRANTED.
(Doc. 215).
Therefore, it does not appear to be necessary to direct Defendant to tender a class list to Plaintiff.
Defendant tendered class lists to Plaintiff, and it believes its efforts were accurate and sufficient. See, e.g.,
(Sealed Doc. 296, pg. 3) (Defendant, in its Sealed Response to Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for
Sanctions, stating: “Following the recent denial of Paycor’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Class Definition
(Doc. 277), Paycor voluntarily provided a supplemental class list capturing every Illinois worker who may
have created a face template. Paycor has provided the broadest notice class possible.”) (Emphasis in
original omitted). Issues related to the accuracy or sufficiency of the class list, which appear to persist, can
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
As a matter of policy, district courts “commonly evaluate claims processes to
ensure they are fair and reasonable and that they are not so burdensome as to discourage
class members from submitting claims.” Kolinek v. Walgreen Co., 311 F.R.D. 483, 499 (N.D.
Ill. 2015). To that end, Rule 23(c)(2)(B) provides as follows:
For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3)…the court must direct to class
members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,
including individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort. The notice may be by one or more of the following:
United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means. The
notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:
(i) the nature of the action;
(ii) the definition of the class certified;
(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;
(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an
attorney if the member so desires;
(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who
requests exclusion;
(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule
23(c)(3).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
“What comprises the best notice possible depends on various elements, including
the size of the class, whether the class members can be easily identified, and the
be addressed in discovery practice and/or pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. However, the relief
presently requested by Plaintiff is granted, in full, in case Defendant’s class list did not include the full
names, most recent mailing addresses, and email addresses, if available, of all potential class members.
See Yates v. Checkers Drive-In Rests., Inc., No. 17-cv-9219, 2020 WL 6447196, *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020) (“Email
and text messages are both electronic forms of communication which are common and can be effective.”).
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
probability notice will reach the intended audience.” Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank, 805 F.
Supp. 2d 560, 595 (N.D. Ill. 2011). However, “compliance with the notice requirements of
F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2) satisfies due process because ‘the adoption of the rule is itself a prima
facie judgment that procedures consonant with its language are constitutional.’ ”
Mangone v. First USA Bank, 206 F.R.D. 222, 232 (S.D. Ill. 2001) (citing 2 Newberg on Class
Actions, § 8.04 (3d ed. 1992)). And, importantly, the Court “has nearly complete
discretion to determine the form and content of notice to class members.” Kaufman v. Am.
Exp. Travel Related Servs., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 404, 406 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (citing Mangone, 206
F.R.D. at 231; Reynolds v. Nat’l Football League, 584 F.2d 280, 285 (8th Cir. 1978); Handschu
v. Special Servs. Div., 787 F.2d 828, 833 (2d Cir. 1986); 7B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1797.6 (3d ed. 2012)).
In this case, Plaintiff proposes direct notice by both First-Class U.S. mail and email.
(Doc. 181, pg. 3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), 2018 Advisory Committee Note, for the
following proposition: “Although it may sometimes be true that electronic methods of
notice, for example email, are the most promising, it is important to keep in mind that a
significant portion of class members in certain cases may have limited or no access to
email or the Internet.”). Plaintiff also proposes the publication of notice through a case-
specific website, “paycorbipaclassaction.com (or similar URL should this web address
not be available),” and a specific 45-day opt out period. (Docs. 181, pgs. 3-4; 181-1, pg. 2).
Further, Plaintiff “retained a reputable administration firm,” Simpluris Inc., to
administer the Notice, which will be posted in English and Spanish on the case-specific
website along with all other important documents and deadlines. (Doc. 181, pg. 4).
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
Plaintiff, who anticipates commencing notice within 21 days of receiving Defendant’s
complete class list, summarizes the administration plan in the following manner:
a. 	The Notice Administrator will email and mail the Notice via First Class
U.S. 	Mail 	to 	all 	class 	members. 	For 	emailed 	notice, 	the 	Notice
Administrator will utilize best practices to increase deliverability and
avoid spam and junk filters, such as avoiding attachments and not using
certain words that are typically associated with junk email. The Notice
Administrator will also track the deliverability of all emails sent and will
provide 	additional 	statistics 	on 	opens, 	click-throughs, 	and 	other
relevant metrics, as needed.
b. 	Before mailing notice, the Notice Administrator will run the class
member addresses through the United States Postal Service National
Change of Address database. Notices that are returned undeliverable as
addressed 	with 	forwarding 	addresses 	provided 	by 	USPS 	will 	be
processed, updated in a case-specific database, and re-mailed. For
Notices returned by USPS without any forwarding addresses, the
Notice Administrator will attempt to obtain updated addresses for the
addressees concerned using proprietary database resources and/or
SSNs and, in instances where updated addresses are found, re-mail the
Notice.
c. 	The Notice Administrator will process all correspondence received,
including exclusion requests.
(Doc. 181, pg. 4).
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion on various grounds. However, due to the
progression of the case since the filing of the Motion and Response, only one ground
remains at issue.2 Defendant argues “the Notice…is deficient in several respects and
2Many of the “numerous [outstanding] legal issues related to the class definition,” identified by
Defendant’s Response, have been resolved. (Doc. 187, pg. 2). The Court rejected Defendant’s claim that
certain issues are not defenses but, instead, relate to “whether class members can even state claims.” (Doc.
187, pgs. 2, 4-11, 13). Also, as noted in footnote 1, Defendant has withdrawn an argument and already
compiled and produced class lists pursuant to the Court’s Orders. Therefore, concerns about overinclusion,
time constraints, or a direct production to class counsel are nonfactors at this juncture in the case. (Doc. 187,
generally). Finally, Defendant’s appeal under Rule 23(f) was resolved by the Seventh Circuit, and this Court
resolved its Motion to Alter or Amend Class Definition. (Docs. 187, pgs. 2, 4, 11-13; 188; 202; 277).
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
cannot be approved and sent to class members as drafted.” (Doc. 187, pg. 4). Defendant
proposes to more fully state its defenses and the current procedural posture of the case,
to correct or eliminate statements regarding attorney fees and damages, and to properly
direct questions and exclusions to the Notice Administrator. (Docs. 187, pg. 14; 187-1).
Here, notice via First-Class U.S. mail, email if possible, and publication on a case-
specific website, while utilizing Defendant’s class lists, clearly comports with the manner-
of-notice requirements in Rule 23(c)(2)(B). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). As to content,
the Court also finds the proposed Notice complies with the above legal principles and is
appropriate at this time, notwithstanding Defendant’s arguments regarding the claims
and defenses and procedural posture of the case, fees and damages, and communications
with Class Counsel versus the Notice Administrator. See id.; see also T.K. Through Leshore
v. Bytedance Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 19-cv-7915, 2022 WL 888943, *8-9 (N.D. Ill. March 25, 2022)
(discussing the award of attorney fees and costs under Rule 23 as well as the proper
content of a fee notice); Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc., 338 F. Supp. 3d 815, 820 (N.D. Ill. 2018)
(“Unlike named parties, ‘a class-action plaintiff is not required to fend for himself. The
court and named plaintiffs protect his interests.’ Indeed, ‘an absent class-action plaintiff
is not required to do anything. He may sit back and allow the litigation to run its course,
content in knowing that there are safeguards provided for his protection.’ ”) (quoting
Phillips Petrol. Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 809-810 (1985)); E.E.O.C. v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg.
of Am., Inc., 102 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1996) (Seventh Circuit, while likening the case to a class
action under Rule 23(b)(3), discussing the “right” of the parties to communicate with
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
“class members”). In its “nearly complete discretion to determine…[the] content of
notice,” however, the Court rules as follows on Defendant’s proposed revisions:
1. 	The Court ALLOWS the following two paragraphs, which Plaintiff
agrees should be included, to be moved to Defendant’s proposed
position at the top of the Notice:
THIS 	NOTICE 	AND 	ITS 	CONTENTS 	HAVE 	BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. THE COURT
HAS TAKEN NO POSITION IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE
MERITS 	OF 	PLAINTIFF’S 	CLAIMS 	OR 	DEFENDANT’S
DEFENSES.
PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO
THIS MATTER. THE JUDGE CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS LAWSUIT OR THIS NOTICE.
2. 	The Court ALLOWS Defendant’s proposed revisions to the section
entitled “1. Why did I get this Notice?” That section shall read:
1. Why did I get this Notice?
This Notice is being sent to you because a Court recently certified a
class action in a lawsuit pending against Paycor and you may be a
class member. This Notice is being sent to tell you about the lawsuit
and how it may affect you. The Notice also explains what to do if
you want to exclude yourself from the lawsuit, and how being a class
member could affect your legal rights and obligations.
3. 	As to the section entitled “2. What is this lawsuit about?”, the Court
ALLOWS certain of Defendant’s proposed revisions and REJECTS
certain of its proposed revisions. That section shall read:
2. What is this lawsuit about?
Named Plaintiff Juan Barron (“Plaintiff”) has a class action lawsuit
pending against Paycor under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/et seq., alleging that Paycor
captured, 	collected, 	received, 	or 	otherwise 	obtained 	your
fingerprints or other biometric data when you used a Perform Time
timekeeping system while working in Illinois, but did so without
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
first providing you with legally-required written disclosures and
obtaining your informed written consent. Under BIPA, Plaintiff can
seek statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation, or $5,000
per intentional violation. Paycor asserts numerous defenses and
denies all of the allegations that it is liable for violating BIPA.
4. 	The Court REJECTS Defendant’s proposed revisions to the section
entitled “3. How will this lawsuit affect me?” However, in light of
the altered and amended class definition, as well as the above
rulings, that section shall read:
3. How will this lawsuit affect me?
The Court has given Plaintiff permission to represent the following
class of workers:
All individuals working in the State of Illinois who had their
fingerprints or other biometric data collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained or disclosed by Defendant’s Perform Time
biometric timekeeping system at any time since January 29, 2015.
If Plaintiff wins the lawsuit, the class may share in damages awarded
to Plaintiff and other class members. If the lawsuit is not successful,
participants who are in the class may be prevented in the future from
bringing their own lawsuit against Defendant. Thus, if you remain
a member of the above-referenced class, you will be bound by the
judgment whether favorable or unfavorable to Plaintiff.
5. 	The Court REJECTS Defendant’s proposed revisions to the section
entitled “6. Has the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ claims?” However,
since Kellin Johns is no longer a Plaintiff, that section shall read:
6. Has the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s claims?
No. The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s claims. The fact that
this Notice is being mailed to you does not mean that the Court has
decided whether any of Defendant’s Perform Time users are owed
any damages, or whether Defendant violated BIPA.
6. 	The Court REJECTS Defendant’s proposed revisions to the section
entitled “7. If I wish to remain in the lawsuit, how will I continue to
receive further Notices?”
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

9
7. 	The Court REJECTS Defendant’s proposed revisions to the section
entitled “8. Who are the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs and
class and how will they be paid?” However, since Kellin Johns is no
longer a Plaintiff, that section shall read:
8. Who are the attorneys representing Plaintiff and the class and how
will they be paid?
The attorneys for Plaintiff and the class are:
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 	PEIFFER WOLF CARR
Ryan F. Stephan 	KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
James B. Zouras 	Brandon M. Wise
Catherine Mitchell Duffy 	One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
Justin Caparco 	St. Louis, MO 63101
222 W Adams Street, Suite 2020 	Telephone: (314) 833-4825
Chicago, Illinois 60606 	bwise@peifferwolf.com
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
Email: lawyers@stephanzouras.com
www.stephanzouras.com
The attorneys for Plaintiff may be entitled to receive a payment of
attorneys’ fees and costs in this lawsuit from the Defendant if there
is a recovery or judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Whether or not there is
a 	recovery 	or 	judgment 	in 	Plaintiff’s 	favor, 	you 	will 	not 	be
responsible for any attorneys’ fees. Any payment of attorneys’ fees
by Defendant to Plaintiff’s counsel may be subject to prior Court
approval. By remaining in this lawsuit, you designate Plaintiff Juan
Barron as your agent to make decisions on your behalf concerning
the litigation, the method and manner of conducting this litigation,
the entering of an agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel concerning
attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other matters pertaining to this
lawsuit. These decisions and agreements made and entered into by
the representative Plaintiff will be binding on you if you do not file
an Election to be Excluded Form.
8. 	The Court REJECTS Defendant’s proposed revisions, not already
addressed above, to the section entitled “9. How can I obtain more
information about this lawsuit?” However, since Kellin Johns is no
longer a Plaintiff, that section shall read:
9. How can I obtain more information about this lawsuit?
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

10
The pleadings and other records of this litigation may be examined
and copied any time during the regular office hours in the office of
the Clerk at the following address:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
750 Missouri Ave, East St. Louis, IL 62201
This Notice (in English and Spanish) is posted on the website for this
case: 	www.paycorbipaclassaction.com. 	Other 	important 	case-
related documents and case-related updates will be posted on the
website as well. Additionally, if you have questions about this case
or need help understanding this Notice, you may contact the lawyers
representing Plaintiff who brought this lawsuit. You may reach
those lawyers by calling 312-233-1550 or by sending an email to
Stephan Zouras, LLC at lawyers@stephanzouras.com.
See Kaufman, 283 F.R.D. at 406; Compare (Doc. 181-1, pgs. 2-3), with (Doc. 187-6, pgs. 2-3).3 4
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval of a Class
Notice and Notice Plan (Doc. 181) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
__________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
3Plaintiff’s Motion is denied only to the extent that the Court allows certain revisions of Defendant.
4Since filing the Motion and Response, the parties have not submitted other proposed revisions.
s/ David W. Dugan
Case 3:20-cv-00264-DWD Document 303 Filed 03/18/26 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>