Brown v. J.I. Case Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1077,86-1077
• Citation: 813 F.2d 848
• Parties: 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 355, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,908 Franklin BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.I. CASE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 848

813 F.2d 848

43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 355,

42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,908

Franklin BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.I. CASE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-1077.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued June 4, 1986.

Decided March 12, 1987.

Veron J. Petri, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant.

George A. Brattain, Marshall, Batman, Day, Swango & Brattain, Terre Haute, Ind., for defendant-appellee.

Before WOOD, COFFEY, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

COFFEY, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff-appellant, Franklin Brown, appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, J.I. Case Company, that his claims of employment discrimination are barred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 and the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.

I.

This case has a long history in state administrative proceedings, state court, and in federal courts for some eleven years. The genesis of this case was on or about March 13, 1975, when Franklin Brown filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC" or "Commission") alleging that the J.I. Case Co. had committed acts of racial discrimination. ¹ Brown alleged in his complaint that while in the employment of the defendant J.I. Case he had been threatened, harassed, and made the subject of racial slurs by fellow employees--behavior which the defendant allegedly took no substantial action to prevent. ²

On October 24, 1975, the appellant filed two more complaints with the ICRC alleging retaliation for having filed the initial racial discrimination charge. On January 30, 1976, the appellant filed his fourth and final complaint against J.I. Case with the ICRC again alleging retaliation for having filed the initial racial discrimination charge. ³

On January 30, 1976, the ICRC issued a temporary emergency order in favor of the plaintiff. ⁴ On February 19, 1976, a hearing was held before the ICRC in which the plaintiff, represented by counsel, had a full opportunity to present testimony and exhibits. On February 20, 1976, the ICRC made the temporary order of January 30, 1976, final ordering J.I. Case "[t]o make constant and sincere efforts to alleviate the hostile racial climate within the Terre Haute plant ..." Brown v. J.I. Case, No. 07519 (ICRC Feb. 20, 1976).

On March 9, 1976, J.I. Case appealed the ICRC's final order to the Superior Court of Vigo County, Indiana. The Vigo Superior Court noted that the Commission had conducted a hearing, but that the Commission's order of February 20, 1976, failed to set forth any findings of fact. The Vigo Superior Court further found that there was "a complete absence of any substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in the record to support a finding which would support the Commission's order." ⁵ J.I. Case v. Brown, No. S-C-76-397, Slip Op. at 6 (Vigo Superior Ct. Feb. 16, 1977). On February 16, 1977, the Superior Court remanded the proceedings to the ICRC with directions to dismiss the proceedings "absent additional probative evidence supportive of the changes [sic] made." Id.

Brown appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals issued an order holding that, since the records of proceedings were not timely filed by Brown, J.I. Case's motion to dismiss the action was granted.

On September 10, 1980, the Commission held a pre-hearing conference with the parties and their counsel present resulting in the Commission allowing Brown to consolidate his four complaints and further ordering him to file a "Specification of Details" within forty-five days as to what "additional evidence supportive of the charges made" could be offered at a hearing. On November 19, 1980, Brown's counsel filed a motion to extend the time for compliance with the September 10, 1980, order until November 26, 1980. As of December 2, 1980, the plaintiff had failed to file any specification or other pleading in compliance with the court order for additional evidence supportive of the charges he filed, ⁶ thus the ICRC Hearing Officer recommended that Brown's complaints be dismissed pursuant to the order of the Vigo Superior Court. Since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed any objections to the dismissal recommendation within the ten-day period allowed, (Indiana Code ("IC") 4-22-1-12 and 910 IAC 1-12-1-(B)), the Commission on January 16, 1981, adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation to dismiss as final. The Commission denied Brown's motion for reconsideration of its order of dismissal.

On July 27, 1981, Brown received a Notice of Right-to-Sue Letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") ⁷ which stated that his Title VII charge filed with the Commission had been dismissed because "no reasonable cause was found to believe that the allegations made in [Brown's] charges are true ..." On October 23, 1981, some eighty-eight days after the plaintiff had received his Notice of Right-to-Sue Letter, he filed four documents with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute Division) consisting of: (1) an Affidavit of Financial Status in Civil Actions, (2) a Financial Affidavit in Support of Request for attorney, (3) a Pauper Affidavit and Order, and (4) his Notice of Right-to-Sue.

On August 9, 1983, after the district court denied Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis, he filed a pro se complaint (September 9, 1983). The district court decided that the documents filed by the plaintiff on October 23, 1981 did not constitute the filing of a complaint and thus dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The district court also rejected Brown's contention that the filing of an application for appointment of counsel accompanied by a Notice of Right-to-Sue Letter tolled the statutory ninety-day filing period provided in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1).

The plaintiff appealed the district court's order dismissing his complaint, and on January 17, 1985, this Court reversed, Brown v. J.I. Case Co., 756 F.2d 48 (7th Cir.1985), stating that:

"The remedial purpose of Title VII and the special equitable circumstances raised by a request for appointment of counsel justify a general rule allowing a request for appointed counsel combined with presentation of a Notice of Right-to-Sue to toll the running of the ninety-day period until the court acts upon the counsel request."

Id. at 50.

On May 6, 1985, after the case was returned to the trial court, J.I. Case filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that since there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of its motion J.I. Case claimed that the doctrine of res judicata and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 applied. J.I. Case argued that the subject matter and issues raised by Brown's complaint had been litigated previously before separate tribunals (the ICRC and the Vigo Superior Court), thus Brown was barred from relitigating his claims. On June 20, 1985, Brown filed a memorandum opposing J.I. Case's motion for summary judgment asserting that J.I. Case was guilty of unreasonable delay in not timely asserting the doctrine of res judicata. On December 12, 1985, the district court granted J.I. Case's motion for summary judgment finding (1) that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 and res judicata barred the plaintiff from further litigating his claims and (2) that the defendant's use of the doctrine res judicata as the basis for its summary judgment motion was not untimely and not prejudicial to the plaintiff. Brown v. J.I. Case, TH 83-212-C, Mem. Op. (S.D.Ind. Dec. 12, 1985).

On appeal Brown raises two issues: (1) whether the district court properly found the doctrine of res judicata and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 precluded him from pursuing his Title VII action in federal court; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing J.I. Case to file its motion for summary judgment premised on the doctrine of res judicata.

II.

Title VII and the preclusive effect to be given decisions from state courts and administrative proceedings has been the subject of two recent Supreme Court decisions: University of Tennessee v. Elliott, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986) ⁸ and Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). In Kremer, the Supreme Court stated that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 ⁹ "[r]equires federal courts to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged." 456 U.S. at 466, 102 S.Ct. at 1889 (footnote omitted).

Brown asserts that the trial court erred in finding that his Title VII claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738. His primary argument is that the Supreme Court's decision in Kremer compels the reversal of the district court's decision.

In Kremer, the plaintiff, Rubin Kremer, filed a Title VII discrimination suit against his employer with the EEOC who in turn referred the case to the New York Division of Human Rights, the agency responsible for administering New York's employment discrimination laws. The New York State Division of Human Rights rejected Kremer's discrimination claim--the judgment of rejection was affirmed at the agency appellate level and again by the reviewing state court. Kremer next brought a Title VII action in federal district court and his employer raised the doctrine of res judicata as a defense. The district court dismissed the complaint on grounds of res judicata, 477 F.Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y.1979), and the Second Circuit affirmed. 623 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.1980). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 the New York State Court's judgment affirming the New York State Division of Human Rights finding of no discrimination was entitled to...