Currie v. WISCONSIN CENT., LTD.
961 N.E.2d 296
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Korey Currie sues Wisconsin Central, Ltd. for race discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation based on six weeks of employment in 2008.
- Currie’s claims arise after he did not opt out of a federal Barnes class action against CN Defendants, including Wisconsin Central, finalized by a January 7, 2010 Final Approval Order.
- The Barnes action alleged widespread racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment with a class comprising African-American CN employees from 2000 onward.
- The Barnes consent decree included a notice program and an opt-out deadline; it specified a release of claims based on race, including retaliation, for non-opt-out class members.
- Currie allegedly received notice late (December 2009) and contends he could not opt out; the circuit court later held Currie was adequately notified and granted dismissal on res judicata grounds.
- The trial court’s 2-619 dismissal order relied on res judicata and the asserted release of Currie’s Illinois Human Rights Act claims by failure to opt out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final judgment on the merits? | Barnes lacked final merits judgment; settlement not final. | Barnes consent decree constitutes final resolution of related claims. | Not a final judgment on the merits; settlement not a final merits judgment. |
| Identity of causes of action? | Currie’s retaliation claim and specific facts differ from Barnes; not all claims coincide. | Currie’s claims mirror Barnes claims, overlapping in purpose and remedy. | Currie’s claims share identity of causes of action with Barnes; covered by class action claims. |
| Adequacy of notice and opt-out? | Notice was late and not adequately tailored; Currie could not reasonably opt out. | Notice was adequate; Currie had opportunity to opt out and did not. | Notice was adequate; Currie failed to opt out. |
| Effect of consent decree release under 2-619(a)(6)? | Consent decree did not clearly encompass Currie’s Illinois Human Rights Act claims. | Consent decree explicitly released all race-based claims including retaliation; Currie was bound. | Plaintiff’s claims were released by the consent decree under 2-619(a)(6). |
| Equity considerations? | Preclusion without compensation or ongoing remedy is unjust. | Equity supports finality and predictable class settlement effects. | Equity does not overcome the release; Currie is bound by the opt-out failure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996) (three requirements for res judicata: final judgment, same cause, same parties; extends to what could have been decided)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 315 Ill.App.3d 1086 (2000) (individual claim not common to class not barred; later cases integrated common issues)
- Best Coin-Op, Inc. v. Paul F. Ilg Supply Co., 189 Ill.App.3d 638 (1989) (burden on party to prove release or discharge; preclusion standards)
- Wiencek v. Woodfield Ford Sales, Inc., 232 Ill.App.3d 471 (1992) (res judicata applied to class-action settlement in similar context)
- Jones v. City of Alton, 757 F.2d 878 (1985) (equity considerations in preclusion; caution against unjust application)