Churchill v. Star Enterprises
Decision Date | 28 June 1999 |
Docket Number | Nos. 98-1491,98-1632,s. 98-1491 |
Citation | 1999 WL 430182,183 F.3d 184 |
Parties | (3rd Cir. 1999) MARY CHURCHILL, APPELLANT IN NO. 98-1491 v. STAR ENTERPRISES, A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED; JOSEPH JANTORNO, A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED; DAVID SMITH, A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED; BERNADINE LANE, A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED MARY CHURCHILL, APPELLANT IN NO. 98-1632 v. STAR ENTERPRISES A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED; JOSEPH JANTORNO; DAVID SMITH MARY CHURCHILL, v. STAR ENTERPRISES A/K/A STAR STAFF INCORPORATED; JOSEPH JANTORNO; DAVID SMITH, APPELLANTS IN NO. 98-1700 , and 98-1700 |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III (D.C. Civ. Nos. 97-03527 and 98-01751) [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Thomas M. Holland (argued) 437 Chestnut Street The Lafayette Building Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Attorney for Mary Churchill
Irving L. Hurwitz (argued) Gary S. Prish Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey 100 Mulberry Street Three Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Attorneys for Star Enterprises a/k/a Star Staff Incorporated, Joseph Jantorno, and David Smith Before: Greenberg and Scirica, Circuit Judges , and DOWD,* District Judge
This case involves a question of claim preclusion: what steps must a plaintiff take to bring about the consolidation of her consecutively filed cases in the district court so that claims in the later case are not precluded by the earlier action? In particular, the district court barred appellant Mary Churchill by a judgment on the pleadings from proceeding with a law suit, Churchill v. Star Enterprises, 3 F. Supp.2d 625 (E.D. Pa. 1998) ("Churchill II"), alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act because she already had brought a suit, Churchill I, based on the same facts and related issues against the defendants in Churchill II, asserting claims in Churchill I under the Family and Medical Leave Act. See Churchill v. Star Enters., 3 F. Supp.2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 1998) ("Churchill I").
We will affirm the district court's judgment on the pleadings in Churchill II because the two cases involved the same parties and germane facts, as well as related issues, and for claim preclusion purposes constituted a single cause of action that should have been joined in a single case. We also will affirm the district court's order on the Appellees' cross-appeal from the denial of an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 seeking sanctions against Churchill for filing Churchill II. Finally, we will affirm on Churchill's separate appeal from an order denying in part her application for attorney's fees in Churchill I.
The facts that we find material to our Disposition of these appeals are not contested. Churchill began work at Star Enterprises, a.k.a. Star Staff Inc. ("Star Staff"), in July 1991 managing a food mart at a Texaco station in Pennsylvania. In June 1996, Churchill was diagnosed with oral cancer. She then notified her temporary supervisor, Walter Schreiber, of her condition and of her need to undergo treatment. During the next two months she underwent three surgical procedures and between August and October 1996, she received radiation treatments. Churchill was limited substantially in performing major life activities, and thus was disabled, but nevertheless continued to work. Churchill made numerous requests to Star Staff for reasonable accommodations during this time, communicating these requests to David Smith, her manager, and Joseph Jantorno, her regional manager, but they were unresponsive. On January 29, 1997, Churchill made a final request for accommodation, and put Star Staff on notice that due to her medical needs she qualified for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 ("FMLA"). Jantorno then instructed Smith to evaluate Churchill and then Jantorno and Smith consulted with Deborah Cox of Star Staff's Human Resources Department regarding the case. Star Staff terminated Churchill on February 5, 1997, because of her disability. Churchill I and II and these appeals followed.
Churchill initiated Churchill I on May 20, 1997, against Star Staff and three of its employees: Jantorno, Smith, and Bernadine Lane, who replaced her as the station manager. Churchill alleged that Star Staff, Jantorno, and Smith violated the FMLA when they discharged her and also were liable to her on common law claims for bad faith and wrongful discharge.1 She charged Lane with defamation, but dropped that count on December 19, 1997, and dismissed Lane as a defendant.
The district court entered judgment on January 27, 1998, for the three remaining defendants on the state law claims because FMLA preempted them. Trial began on the other counts on February 11, 1998, and on February 13, 1998, the jury rendered its verdict for Churchill, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages of $8,609.02, plus interest at 6.5%, or $559.59. The court doubled the award as liquidated damages, finding that the defendants' violation of FMLA was not in good faith. On February 17, 1998, the court entered judgment for $18,337.22, and ordered that Churchill be reinstated to a position equivalent to her prior position with equivalent wages and benefits.
Churchill then sought attorney's fees of $52,018.20, as well as costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3). On April 17, 1998, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order partially granting and partially denying Churchill's fee application and ordering the defendants to pay $37,062.50 for attorney's fees and $9,410.19 costs. Churchill filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, which the court denied by an order entered on May 28, 1998. On this appeal, Churchill seeks reversal of the portion of the order denying attorney's fees for (1) time spent in connection with an unemployment compensation hearing on March 26, 1997, on a claim Churchill brought after her discharge and (2) for time to prepare for and conduct a deposition of Lane.
Churchill pursued her claims against Star Staff along parallel courses. Thus, on February 26, 1997, Churchill filed an administrative complaint alleging disability discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC"), and at that time her administrative complaint was dual filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") asserting an American with Disabilities Act claim. The PHRC dismissed the disability discrimination claim on or about November 14, 1997, and on April 26, 1998, Churchill received a right to sue letter dated April 24, 1998, from the EEOC. As we will discuss, she had not requested a right to sue letter.
On April 2, 1998, about two months after the jury reached its verdict in Churchill I, Churchill filed a complaint against the Appellees, Star Enterprises, Jantorno, and Smith, under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (Counts I and II); the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 951 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1998) (Counts III and IV); and the New Jersey Family Leave Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 34:11-B1 et seq. (West Supp. 1999) (Counts V and VI).2 The Appellees answered the complaint on April 23, 1998, including as an affirmative defense the contention that Churchill's claims were "barred by the doctrine of res judicata," and that Appellees had "fully satisfied the court's judgment entered February 17, 1998 . . . ." There is no doubt that the Appellees' answer raised the res judicata defense in reliance on the proceedings in Churchill I and Churchill does not contend otherwise.
The district court on Appellees' motion to dismiss entered a judgment for the Appellees on the pleadings on June 23, 1998, on claim preclusion principles because Churchill II and Churchill I "involved the same cause of action." Churchill II, 3 F. Supp.2d at 628. On July 21, 1998, Churchill appealed in Churchill II, seeking reinstatement of her ADA and PHRA Counts.3
On May 1, 1998, the Appellees served Churchill with notice that they intended to seek sanctions against her for filing Churchill II and unless she withdrew that case within 21 days they would file the motion for sanctions. Obviously, Churchill did not comply with their request and on May 29, 1998, when the Appellees filed their motion to dismiss Churchill II on res judicata grounds, they also moved for sanctions in the form of reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. Although, as we have indicated, the district court granted the Appellees judgment on the pleadings, it denied their motion for sanctions "under the totality of the circumstances." Churchill II, 3 F. Supp.2d at 631.
We exercise plenary review of the order for judgment on the pleadings, see Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290 (3d Cir. 1988), and thus of the application of claim preclusion in Churchill II, see Rider v. Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982, 988-95 (3d Cir. 1988), and we review the denial of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion, see Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Federal Agents, Employees or Officers, 855 F.2d 1080, 1091 (3d Cir. 1988). On Churchill's appeal from the partial denial of her attorney's fee application in Churchill I we exercise an abuse of discretion standard. See EEOC v. L.B. Foster Co., 123 F.3d 746, 750 (3d Cir. 1997).
This case seems to present the first application in any court of appeals of claim preclusion barring the assertion of claims following a case already litigated under FMLA.4 Yet while the constellation of facts in this case is new, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmelo v. Mickletz (In re Mickletz)
...would allow Carmelo to split his claims. This would violate basic principles of res judicata. See, e.g., Churchill v. Star Enterprises, 183 F.3d 184, 194–95 (3d Cir.1999) ; Ally Fin., Inc. v. Mente Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., No.2012 WL 4473240, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 28, ...
-
Parker v. Hahnemann University Hosp.
...birth or adoption of a child, and for the care of a child, spouse or parent who has a serious health condition." Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184, 192 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(1), (2); S.Rep. No. 103-3 at To present a claim under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show (1) ......
-
Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 4:03 CV 90174.
...Cir.2001) (stating that FMLA provides for equitable relief and "[s]uch equitable relief may include front pay"); Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184, 193 (3d Cir.1999) ("Title VII, like FMLA, provides for back pay and front pay or reinstatement."). Plaintiff requests front pay in the am......
-
Warner v. Montgomery Township, CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-3309 (E.D. Pa. 7/22/2002)
...before suit may be filed in court." Schouten v. CSX Transp., Inc., 58 F. Supp.2d 614, 617 (E.D.Pa. 1999) (citing Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 1999)). "Moreover, the analysis of whether a plaintiff has failed to exhaust those remedies under the PHRA is identical to t......
-
Family and Medical Leave Act
...Sears’ summary judgment motion. 33 TAXATION OF DAMAGES 33.1 Churchill v. Star Enterprises , 3 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d , 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999). Star Enterprises was ordered by the court to pay its employee, Mary Churchill, more than $18,300 in lost wages and liquidated d......
-
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
...a minimum labor standard of leave” that lets employees “take reasonable leave for medical reasons.” Churchill v. Star Enterprises , 183 F.3d 184, 192 (3rd Cir. 1999 (quoting 29 U.S.C. §2601(b)(1-2). Congress intended that the Act would establish “a minimum labor standard for leave” in the t......
-
Table of cases
...29:3.B Church v. Kare Distribution, Inc. , 211 Fed. App’x 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2006), §18:7.H.2, 24:4.D.2 Churchill v. Star Enterprises , 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999), App. 25-2 Churchill v. Star Enterprises a/k/a Star Staff, Inc., 3 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 1998), §25:8.D.1 Cianci v. Pettibo......
-
Family and Medical Leave Act
...Sears’ summary judgment motion. 33 TAXATION OF DAMAGES 33.1 Churchill v. Star Enterprises , 3 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d , 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999). Star Enterprises was ordered by the court to pay its employee, Mary Churchill, more than $18,300 in lost wages and liquidated d......