fall within the concept of privity is that between a nonparty and party who acts as the nonparty’s representative. See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2191 n. 2, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 41(1980). 921 F.2d at 493 (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). The Court further observed in U.S. Steel that “[ojver the years, claim preclusion has been applied to a variety of representatives” such as trustee actions, class actions, and labor union acti 7th Cir.1987) (discussing doctrine of “virtual representation” which permits privity element of res judicata to be satisfied when “the party to the first suit was an adequate representative of the ... interests” of party to second suit); Jones v. Bell Helicopter Co., 614 F.2d 1389 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds as stated in
holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction holding that dismissal of eeocs action for failure to comply with administrative procedures act barred subsequent private action based on same claim under res judicata principles holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that subsequent action barred by res judicata where party had full and fair opportunity to present case before zoning board holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action