Jang v. United Technologies Corp.
Decision Date | 17 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-4022,99-4022 |
Citation | 206 F.3d 1147 |
Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) Kenneth JANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, d.b.a. Pratt & Whitney, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN *, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns whether res judicata 1 bars Appellant Kenneth Jang's suit against Appellee United Technologies Corporation (UTC), d/b/a Pratt & Whitney, for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213. The district court found Appellant's suit barred and dismissed it with prejudice. We agree with the district court's analysis and affirm.
Appellant worked as an aerospace engineer for Appellee. On November 18, 1996, Appellant filed suit in federal court (Jang I ) against Appellee. The complaint alleged causes of action under the ADA and the Florida Civil Rights Act, and a breach of contract claim. The district court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected Appellant's ADA claim because Appellant did not have a "right to sue" letter, found the Florida Civil Rights Act claim time-barred, and deemed the breach of contract claim insufficient as a matter of law. After Appellant subsequently obtained a "right to sue" letter, Appellant filed a second suit in federal court (Jang II ) against Appellee. That suit included an almost verbatim copy of the ADA and the Florida Civil Rights Act claims from the complaint in Jang I. The district court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on res judicata in light of the entry of summary judgment in Jang I. This appeal followed.
Res judicata, a legal determination which we review de novo, bars relitigation of matters decided in a prior proceeding. See Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. v. Entin, 951 F.2d 311, 314 (11th Cir.1992). "Specifically, it will bar a subsequent action if: (1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the parties were identical in both suits; and (4) the prior and present causes of action are the same." Id. (citing Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1501 (11th Cir.1990); In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir.1990)).
This case meets the four elements of res judicata. Appellant concedes that Jang I reached a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction and involved the same parties as Jang II. The two cases involved the same cause of action for res judicata purposes because Jang II arose from the same nucleus of operative fact and relied on the same factual predicate as Jang I. See Entin, 951 F.2d at 315. In addition, the district court granted summary judgment "on the merits" in Jang I with respect to at least the Florida Civil Rights Act and the breach of contract claims.2 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Appellant asserts that he could not have raised his ADA claim in Jang I and thus res judicata should not bar his ADA claim in Jang II. Appellant explains that he attempted to obtain a "right to sue" letter before filing Jang I but that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) failed to transmit the letter. At least three other Circuits have rejected similar arguments and held that plaintiffs may not split causes of action to bring, for example, state law claims in one suit and then file a second suit with federal causes of action after receiving a "right to sue" letter. See Heyliger v. State Univ. & Community College Sys. of Tenn., 126 F.3d 849, 855-56 (6th Cir.1997) ( ); Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir.1995) ( ); Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 972 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1992) ( ). In the most analogous case, Rivers v. Barberton Board of Education, 143 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir.1998), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the application of res judicata to bar a suit involving a Title VII claim after the court had dismissed a factually related federal claim on the merits in a prior suit between the parties. See Rivers, 143 F.3d at 1032. We agree with these other Circuits, and the district court in this case, and hold that res judicata barred Appellant from splitting his causes of action and bringing his ADA claim after his first suit proceeded to a judgment on the merits.3
AFFIRMED.
*. Honorable ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montgomery-Smith v. La. Dep't of Health & Hosps.
...claim subject to res judicata where plaintiff received right-to-sue letter during pendency of prior action); Jang v. United Techs. Corp. , 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding ADA claim was not exempt from res judicata where plaintiff failed to obtain right-to-sue letter during pen......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.
...56(c). We also review de novo a district court's determination of res judicata or collateral estoppel. See Jang v. United Techs. Corp, 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir.2000). However, whether a party is in privity with another for preclusion purposes is a question of fact that is reviewed for ......
-
In re Ryals
...the tax court action to make the offset argument he now raises, he is estopped from relitigating that issue now. Jang v. United Techs. Corp., 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir.2000). Additionally, Ryals' attempt to challenge the validity of the assessment against him for 1978 is outside the sco......
-
Sneed v. Raybon
... ... No. 5:16-cv-1442-AKK United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division August 31, 2022 ... 8 (11th Cir. 2003)); ... U.S. Steel Corp. v. Astrue , 495 F.3d 1272, 1287 n ... 13 (11th Cir. 2007) ... ...
-
Employment Discrimination - Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall
...142 F.3d 1354, 1357-59 (11th Cir. 1998). 201. 200 F.3d at 1355-56. 202. Id. at 1355 (emphasis in original). 203. Id. at 1355-56. 204. 206 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 2000). 205. Id. at 1148. 206. Id. at 1149. 207. Id. 208. 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000). 209. Id. at 1365. "Reasonable accommodation......