Ashbourne v. Hansberry
245 F. Supp. 3d 99
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anica Ashbourne, a former Treasury Department employee, was terminated May 10, 2011 and alleges race- and gender-based discrimination under Title VII.
- Ashbourne previously filed consolidated litigation ("Ashbourne I") in federal court arising from the same employment termination and related events; that case included claims under § 1983 and the Privacy Act.
- Chief Judge Howell dismissed the § 1983 claim and later granted summary judgment for defendants on the Privacy Act claim; those dispositions are final and on appeal to the D.C. Circuit.
- Ashbourne pursued administrative EEO procedures; the Treasury issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) in December 2012 finding no discrimination, and the EEOC later dismissed her appeal as duplicative.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the present Title VII complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (and alternatively for summary judgment), arguing res judicata and related defenses.
- The district court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the Title VII action is barred in its entirety by res judicata because it shares the same nucleus of facts, parties, and resulted in a prior final judgment on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ashbourne's Title VII claims are precluded by res judicata because of Ashbourne I | Ashbourne contends she did not abandon Title VII claims and pursued administrative remedies (EEOC); she implies she could not or did not include Title VII claims in Ashbourne I while EEOC process was pending | Defendants argue Ashbourne I and this action arise from the same nucleus of facts, involve the same parties, and Ashbourne I produced final judgments on the merits, so res judicata bars relitigation | Court held res judicata applies; Title VII complaint is barred in its entirety and dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether pendency of EEOC proceedings insulated Title VII claims from preclusion | Ashbourne argues administrative EEOC appeal and right-to-sue process prevented inclusion or required separate pursuit | Defendants argue federal employees could have added Title VII claims after the FAD or sought a stay/amendment in Ashbourne I; pendency at EEOC does not prevent res judicata | Court held pendency of EEOC appeal did not excuse failure to join Title VII claims in Ashbourne I; res judicata unaffected by EEOC pendency |
| Whether court may resolve res judicata on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion using public records | Ashbourne implies factual disputes might preclude dismissal without discovery | Defendants rely on public records (FAD, EEOC decision, Ashbourne I docket) that courts can judicially notice on 12(b)(6) | Court held it may consider those public documents and decide res judicata on Rule 12(b)(6) without discovery |
| Whether prior motions (dismissal and summary judgment) in Ashbourne I constitute judgments on the merits for preclusion purposes | Ashbourne suggests she intended to pursue Title VII separately and did not abandon claims | Defendants argue dismissal and summary judgment in Ashbourne I were judgments on the merits and thus preclusive | Court held both the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and summary judgment in Ashbourne I were judgments on the merits and give res judicata effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59 (res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 513 F.3d 257 (elements of claim preclusion)
- Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72 (same nucleus of operative facts test for cause-of-action identity)