533 F. App'x 644
7th Cir.2013Background
- Andre Harrison, an Operations Manager at Deere, was fired on Sept. 3, 2009 for engaging in sexual relationships with subordinate employees; Deere cited a zero-tolerance policy for managers dating subordinates.
- Harrison sued previously: (1) Addington (Illinois state court) against eight Deere managers for defamation and interference; the trial court granted summary judgment for managers and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, finding Harrison’s conduct created workplace-violence and financial-liability risks. (Addington resulted in a final judgment.)
- (2) Deere I (Illinois state court) where Harrison sued Deere alleging invasion of privacy, wrongful termination, and IPRRA claims; some claims were dismissed and portions were held barred by res judicata after Addington.
- Harrison then filed this federal § 1981 suit alleging he was terminated because he is Black and that Deere selectively enforced its policy (had tolerated similar conduct by white managers).
- Deere moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), asserting res judicata because the facts underlying the § 1981 claim were litigated in Addington (and Deere I); the district court granted Deere’s motion and dismissed the case.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Addington was a final judgment for res judicata purposes, (2) the claims arise from the same transactional facts, and (3) the managers in Addington were Deere’s agents (privity), so Deere is precluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Harrison’s § 1981 claim | Harrison: Addington did not adjudicate racial-discrimination theory; § 1981 raises distinct issues including historical discrimination evidence | Deere: Addington decided the operative facts surrounding termination; § 1981 is a different theory but arises from the same transaction | Held: Yes — res judicata applies; claims share identity of cause of action |
| Whether prior judgment involved same parties or their privies | Harrison: Prior case named managers, not Deere, so no identity of parties | Deere: Managers acted as agents for Deere and shared aligned interests; Deere would be liable for their actions | Held: Yes — managers were in privity with Deere; parties’ identity requirement satisfied |
| Whether the state-court judgment must be given preclusive effect in federal court | Harrison: (not contested on appeal) | Deere: Federal court must give state judgment same preclusive effect as state courts under Full Faith and Credit | Held: Court applied Illinois res judicata law and concluded state judgment precludes federal suit |
| Whether district court erred by considering state-court opinions on a Rule 12(c) motion | Harrison: District court relied on materials outside pleadings (Addington, Deere I) improperly | Deere: Those cases were referenced in Deere’s answer; courts may consider incorporated documents and public records | Held: No error — district court permissibly considered those public-record/state-court opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Ala. Bank, 474 U.S. 518 (federal courts must give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect the state would give)
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (federal claims precluded only if full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998) (Illinois transactional test for identity of cause of action)
- Addington v. [Named Defendants], 955 N.E.2d 700 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (appellate decision recounting facts, affirming summary judgment; found conduct created workplace risks)
- Garcia v. Village of Mount Prospect, 360 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2004) (application of transactional test and privity principles)