Bradshaw v. Golden Road Motor Inn
Citation | 885 F. Supp. 1370 |
Decision Date | 18 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. CV-N-94-0074-ECR.,CV-N-94-0074-ECR. |
Parties | Susan BRADSHAW, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN ROAD MOTOR INN, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael E. Langton of Langton & Kilburn, Reno, NV, for plaintiff.
Bruce Laxalt of Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., Reno, NV, for defendant.
This is a sex discrimination case brought under Title VII by Susan Bradshaw against her former employer, the Clarion Hotel Casino in Reno, Nevada. There are pendent state statutory and tort claims. The Clarion has filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. # 29. Bradshaw has opposed, Doc. # 19, and the Clarion has replied. Doc. # 24. The Clarion's motion will be GRANTED.
Bradshaw worked for the Clarion as a dealer from April 10, 1991, until she was fired on September 2, 1993. The Clarion claims she was fired because her job performance was inadequate, and, more specifically, because of her behavior during an incident on the casino floor on August 28, 1993. Bradshaw's contention, as explained below, is not entirely clear. We address first some collateral matters.
The parties also argue at length about the import of NRS 612.533, which provides, in relevant part, that "any finding of fact or law, judgment, determination, conclusion or final order" made pursuant to the state statutes on unemployment compensation is "not admissible or binding" in a separate suit between the employer and employee before a "court or judge of this state or the United States...."
Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1283 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). As a matter of federal common law, federal courts under Elliott must "give preclusive effect ... to the fact-finding of state administrative tribunals." Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir.1994).1
After she was fired, Bradshaw applied for unemployment insurance benefits, which the Clarion controverted. A hearing was held before an appeals referee of the state Employment Security Division, who ruled that Bradshaw was not entitled to benefits because she had been discharged for "misconduct" — specifically, for refusing her supervisor's direct order to go to his office, and for manifesting that refusal by loud and inappropriate conduct on the casino floor, in front of customers and her coworkers. Doc. # 29 Exh. H. The referee's ruling was never reviewed by a court. Indeed, the ruling was not even reviewed within the Employment Security Division, as Bradshaw's appeal was filed late and the Division's Board of Review therefore refused to hear it. The Clarion argues strenuously and at length, see Doc. # 29 at 4-9; Doc. # 24 at 3-7, that because "this matter has been fully and finally adjudicated" by the Employment Security Division, Doc. # 24 at 4, we must "afford that prior adjudication res judicata effect," Doc. # 29 at 9, and dismiss Bradshaw's claims.
That is incorrect. Bradshaw's only federal claim is for sex discrimination under Title VII, and unreviewed state administrative proceedings have no preclusive effect on Title VII claims. University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 3225, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986).2 This result is mandated by federal common law. NRS 612.533 dictates the same result, but would come into play only if the referee's decision had been reviewed by a state court. Only then would this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738, look to the state statute and give the decision the same preclusive effect a Nevada court would give it, i.e., none at all.
Id. at n. 21. Though Alexander dealt with an arbitral decision, that case's analytical framework can be applied just as easily to a decision rendered by an agency responsible for investigating and adjudicating claims of employment discrimination as to a decision rendered by a labor arbitrator.3
Only a few cases address the admissibility in an employment discrimination suit of decisions by state unemployment compensation officials. The most thorough opinions are Barfield v. Orange County, 911 F.2d 644 (11th Cir.1990), and Baldwin v. Rice, 144 F.R.D. 102 (E.D.Cal.1992).4 In Barfield, the plaintiff sought to exclude from evidence an EEOC report and a report of proceedings of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. The court held that the EEOC report was admissible, in the trial court's discretion and in light of Rule 403, as a public record under Rule 803(8). It paid little attention to the unemployment commission's report, explaining that, because FRE 803(8) "makes no distinction between federal and nonfederal offices and agencies" and "because a finding of misconduct is clearly relevant to a charge that an employee has been fired not for any proper reason but because of racial discrimination," id. at 649-50 & n. 7, its analysis of the admissibility of the EEOC report applied equally to the unemployment commission's report.
In Baldwin, the court admitted a decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, for a variety of reasons:
Baldwin, 144 F.R.D. at 105-07. The Baldwin court ruled as it did despite the fact that a California statute, basically identical to Nevada's, made such unemployment decisions inadmissible.
We assume that a decision by a state unemployment board or officer is a "public record" within the meaning of Rule 803(8). We note that there may be cases in which, as in Baldwin, an unemployment compensation hearing has been unusually complete, with each party given a chance to participate fully and afforded the full complement of procedural protections. We note, also, that a finding by an unemployment board or officer that, say, an employee was or was not fired for "misconduct," will usually be relevant to an employment discrimination suit.
Nevertheless, we must disagree with the Barfield and Baldwin courts, essentially for two reasons. First, we think that an unemployment compensation hearing will normally fail to meet the four Alexander criteria. The hearing may well be procedurally fair and an adequate record may be made on the issue of discrimination. Still, state unemployment statutes are even less likely than collective bargaining agreements to contain provisions that "conform substantially" to Title VII; the question at the hearing is whether the employee is entitled to compensation under state statutes, not whether the employee was discriminated against in violation of federal law. Also, the hearing officer or board will typically have no special competence in deciding claims of discrimination.
Related to the fact that an unemployment hearing is not designed to resolve discrimination claims is a serious policy concern, enunciated most clearly by our circuit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Todd v. McCahan
...of proof relevant in unemployment proceedings are not the same as those presently before the Court. See Bradshaw v. Golden Road Motor Inn, 885 F.Supp. 1370, 1373-75 (D.Nev. 1995)("the question at the hearing is whether the employee is entitled to compensation under state statutes, not wheth......
-
Arroyo v. Westlb Admin., Inc.
...legal standards. Further, "[u]nemployment benefit hearings are designed to be quick and inexpensive." Bradshaw v. Golden Rd. Motor Inn, 885 F.Supp. 1370, 1375 (D.Nev.1995). Accordingly, an "unemployment hearing officer's decision, though it may be admitted in a federal discrimination suit, ......
-
Cottrill v. Mfa, Inc.
...work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment); Bradshaw v. Golden Rd. Motor Inn, 885 F.Supp. 1370, 1381 (D.Nev.1995) (holding that supervisor's routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment ......
-
Reed v. Inland Intermodal Logistics Servs. LLC
...be admitted [in an employment discrimination suit]." Pascual, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17732, at *14 (quoting Bradshaw v.Golden Rd. Motor Inc., 885 F. Supp. 1370, 1375 (D. Nev. 1995)). Reed's TDOL decision is inadmissible. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party need only......
-
Administrative Decisions and Materials
...knew the decision would be admitted, though not given preclusive effect, in the federal lawsuit. Bradshaw v. Golden Road Motor Inn , 885 F.Supp. 1370 (D.Nev. 1995). Plaintiff moved in limine to exclude the Montana Human Rights Bureau’s Final Investigative Report, Notice of Dismissal, Notice......
-
Discovery
...have, to some extent, succeeded in prejudicing the court against the plaintiff. For example, in Bradshaw v. Golden Road Motor Inn , 885 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Nev. 1995), the employer moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim. The defendant argued strenuously that the court......