Employment cases are frequently litigated in federal courts, as plaintiffs often pursue claims under the various federal statutes governing retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and interference in employment. Employers should consult experienced counsel and be mindful of their available defenses when an employee attempts to sue them, especially in the situation where the same employee unsuccessfully litigated one or more cases against them in the past.
The recent decision in Hayes v. Md. Transit Admin., 708 F. Supp. 3d 683 (D. Md. 2023) highlights the applicability of a res judicata defense in this context, recognizing the validity of the defense even where the employee adds a different cause of action and changes the individual defendants being sued in their official capacities. The key takeaway from the case is the District Court’s emphasis that the “new” cause of action was still precluded because “res judicata not only bars claims that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding, but also claims that could have been litigated.” The following is a summary of the case and the Court’s holding, without citations:
Factual/Procedural Background
In Hayes, the plaintiff worked for the Maryland Transit Administration (“MTA”) and became disabled following back surgery. She requested an ergonomic chair as an accommodation, which the MTA provided after a delay. The plaintiff claimed that the delay in providing the accommodation exacerbated her condition, causing her to apply for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”).
During one of her leaves of absence while out on FMLA, the plaintiff was accused by her employer of having misused her leave because she purportedly attended a social event on the same day she called out. The plaintiff was subsequently sent a letter informing her that she was suspended for five days due to “falsifying FMLA.” Thereafter, the plaintiff was absent from work and did not contact her supervisor or provide a doctor’s note regarding her absence. The MTA therefore deemed the plaintiff to have resigned without notice.
In March 2018, after completing the administrative process before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the MTA and two MTA employees for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), the FMLA, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“FEPA”). The District Court awarded the MTA summary judgment, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Thereafter, in 2023, the plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the MTA and different MTA employees for alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, and the FMLA. This time, instead of filing a claim under Maryland’s FEPA, the plaintiff substituted a new cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (the “IIED Claim”). All of the claims arose out of the same operative facts as the initial 2018 lawsuit. After the MTA removed the case to federal court, they filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing inter alia that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by principles of res judicata. In particular, the MTA argued that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because a final judgment was already entered on three of the claims, and because the IIED Claim could have been litigated in the prior action.
U.S. District Court Holding
For its analysis of the res judicata argument, the District Court observed that because the plaintiff brought her first action in federal court, the “federal rules of res judicata apply.” However, the Court noted that “[t]he elements of res judicata under federal law are analogous to those under Maryland law.” To establish a res judicata defense, a party must establish three elements:
(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit,
(2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and
(3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.
In Hayes, the first element was satisfied because the District Court previously entered judgment in favor of the defendants on Plaintiff’s 2018 claims. The second element was satisfied because the “current action and the previous action arise out of ‘the same transaction or series of transactions or the same core of operative facts.’” The Court explained:
Plaintiff has brought essentially the same suit based upon the same conduct that occurred during her employment at MTA. Additionally, it is immaterial that Plaintiff’s IIED claim was not adjudicated in her first action because “res judicata not only bars claims that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding, but also claims that could have been litigated.”
The third element was satisfied because the plaintiff first sued the MTA and several MTA employees in their individual and official capacities, and later sued the MTA and MTA employees in their official capacities. The Court held that the “privity requirement” was met even though the individuals were different because they were still sued in the same official capacity, noting that “‘a government official in his official capacity does not represent ‘precisely the same legal right’ as he does in his individual capacity.’”
The District Court granted the MTA’s motion and dismissed the case. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision in an unpublished per curiam opinion. See Hayes v. Md. Transit Admin., No. 24-1482, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24108 (4th Cir. Sep. 23, 2024).
Eccleston and Wolf attorneys regularly provide risk management seminars and EEO-based trainings to employers, with an emphasis on best practices and legal compliance. The Firm also represents employers in local, State and Federal administrative agencies and courts. If you would like to arrange a speaking engagement, or if you have an employment-related legal issue or dispute, please contact the Firm’s Managing Principal, Stephen Cornelius (Click Here for a direct link via email).