323 P.3d 594
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Fowler, Westminster College employee, was a mail-room supervisor with back problems and later an addiction to prescription pain medication.
- After a 2004 surgery, Fowler entered rehab and went on short-term disability; Westminster arranged a drug test via IMRO in Oct 2005.
- Teynor, who owns IMRO, reviewed Fowler’s results, knew he had a carisoprodol prescription, and reported alarming findings to Westminster.
- Westminster terminated Fowler on Nov 1, 2005, citing the drug test results.
- Fowler sued Westminster in federal court alleging ADA discrimination; a jury found Westminster violated the ADA and awarded damages.
- Teynor and IMRO then sought summary judgment in this case, arguing issue preclusion based on the federal judgment; the district court granted the motion, and Fowler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars Fowler’s claims against Teynor and IMRO | Fowler argues the issues against Teynor/IMRO differ and were not decided in the Westminster case | Teynor/IMRO contend key issues were identical and fully litigated in the federal case | Yes; issue preclusion applies to bar the claims. |
| Identity of the issues in the prior and current suits | Fowler claims the prior action did not decide whether Teynor/IMRO breached duties or caused damages | The court held the issue of why Fowler was terminated (reliance on drug test) was decided | Identical issues were litigated; the prior verdict resolved the dispositive issue. |
| Full and fair litigation of the prior issue | Fowler asserts the two cases involved different claims and defenses | The jury fully heard evidence on Westminster’s reliance on the drug test and found pretext for discrimination | The issue was fully and fairly litigated in the prior action. |
| Final judgment on the merits in the prior action | Fowler argues Westminster’s judgment did not resolve the merits of his negligence claims | The prior judgment on the ADA matter satisfies the final-merits requirement for issue preclusion | The prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits for purposes of issue preclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Campbell, 674 P.2d 1226 (Utah 1983) (identifying the focus of issue preclusion—whether the issues are identical and essential to the prior resolution)
- Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214 (Utah 2000) (identity of issues governs preclusion when the prior issue resolved the central dispute)
- Sommerville v. State, 297 P.3d 665 (Utah App. 2013) (issue must be central to the prior litigation to support preclusion)
- Harline v. Barker, 912 P.2d 433 (Utah 1996) (good faith reliance analysis and finality of prior adjudication used to support res judicata)
- Zufelt v. Haste, Inc., 142 P.3d 594 (Utah App. 2006) (illustrates completeness of prior litigation for preclusion)
- Moss v. Parr Wad⋅doups Brown Gee & Loveless, 285 P.3d 1157 (Utah 2012) (four elements of issue preclusion applied to determine preclusion)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah 2008) (federal law used to govern issue preclusion when appropriate)
- Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 203 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2000) (four elements framework for federal preclusion analysis)