Opinion
Civil Action No.: 05 C 6257.
March 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Reggie Forney brought this putative class action against TTX Company and Tim Loeffler, alleging violations of federal and state wage statutes as well as common law. Defendants move for approval and enforcement of a purported settlement agreement. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from disputes over Forney's overtime wages and medical leave. Forney worked at TTX for seventeen years before she was terminated in September 2005. Answer at ¶ 1. At the time of termination, she was a maintenance accountant; Loeffler was her supervisor. Id. at ¶ 9; Defs. Mem. at 2. Her nine-count amended complaint alleges claims based on federal and state wage statutes (Counts I through V), the Family Medical Leave Act (Count VI), and common law (Counts VII through IV). This motion concerns the purported settlement of Counts I through V.
On October 28, 2005, Forney sent a letter to TTX demanding $2,989.40 for "all wages, salary, and compensation to which [she] is due" under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act ("the IWPCA"). Pl. Ex. A at 1. Three days after making the demand, she filed this case. As a putative class representative, she brought her wage claims under five federal and state statutes, including the IWPCA. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 1-63.
After the commencement of this case, the parties discussed settlement on several occasions. On November 11, 2005, defendants sent a letter to Forney requesting a settlement demand. Pl. Ex. D at 1. In their letter, defendants questioned the jury value of this case, noting Forney demanded "less than $3,000" for her wage claims. Id. They sent a second request on November 28, 2005. Pl. Ex. F at 1. The next day, Forney offered to settle the entire case for $6 million. Pl. Ex. G at 1. Defendants made a counter-offer of $17,000 on December 14, 2005. Denis Aff. at ¶ 10. But Forney rejected defendants' counter-offer. Pl. Ex. I at 1. At the status hearing on December 16, 2005, the parties informed the court that they failed to reach a settlement. Dkt. No. 18 (Dec. 16, 2005).
On January 6, 2006, defendants sent Forney a check in the amount of $2,989.40. Defs. Ex. B at 1. They asserted the payment constituted acceptance of Forney's October 28, 2005 offer to settle her "entire wage, salary and compensation claim." Id. Forney returned the check, stating the October 28, 2005 offer reflected an incorrect amount based on information obtained through discovery. Defs. Ex. C at 1. Arguing their acceptance perfected the formation of an enforceable agreement, defendants move for approval of this purported settlement agreement.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
State law governs the formation of settlement agreements. Liu v. T H Mach., Inc., 191 F.3d 790, 795 (7th Cir. 1999). Because the parties' briefs assume Illinois law governs, the court applies Illinois law. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Bodi-Wachs Aviation Ins. Agency, Inc., 39 F.3d 138, 142 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1994) (the district court may apply forum law if the parties do not raise a choice of law issue). In Illinois, an enforceable settlement agreement requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. See Sementa v. Tylman, 595 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ill.App.Ct. 2d Dist. 1992); see also Int'l Bus. Lists, Inc. v. AT T Co., 147 F.3d 636, 641 (7th Cir. 1998). Questions of contract formation typically fall within the province of the jury. Liu, 191 F.3d at 795. But if the relevant facts are undisputed, "the question of the existence of a contract is solely a matter of law for determination by the court." Malcak v. Westchester Park Dist., 754 F.2d 239, 243 (7th Cir. 1985).
II. Offer and Acceptance
Defendants argue the parties formed a valid agreement to settle the wage claims. According to defendants' theory, Forney offered to settle her wage claims for $2,989.40 on October 28, 2005. Defendants accepted her offer by tendering payment on January 6, 2006. Accordin