860 F.3d 762
5th Cir.2017Background
- Guadalupe Welsh, a teacher at Fort Bend ISD (FBISD), filed an EEOC charge in 2012 and amended it in June 2014; she got a right-to-sue letter June 30, 2014.
- Welsh sued FBISD in Texas state court (Welsh I) on Sept. 26, 2014, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Texas law; the state court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/statute of limitations on Jan. 9, 2015.
- Welsh filed a second EEOC charge covering conduct through Dec. 19, 2014 and sued in federal court (Welsh II) on May 12, 2015 under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging TINA placement, adverse PDAS, refusal of recommendation, withheld accommodation information, grievance filings, and a humiliating remark on Dec. 19, 2014.
- FBISD moved for summary judgment in Welsh II, arguing res judicata barred all claims because Welsh I was a final adjudication; the district court granted summary judgment and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed res judicata de novo and examined whether claims that matured after filing Welsh I were barred by Texas res judicata law.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded that claims not mature at the time of Welsh I were not required to be pleaded then; it vacated the district court judgment and remanded for determination which claims (if any) are precluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Welsh II in whole | Welsh: claims arising after Welsh I were not ripe then and thus not barred | FBISD: all claims in Welsh II could have been raised in Welsh I and are precluded | Court: Only claims that were mature when Welsh I was filed are barred; claims not yet mature are not precluded |
| Burden to invoke res judicata | Welsh: movant must prove preclusion elements; mature claims only | FBISD: prior final judgment bars later claims arising from same facts | Court: movant bears burden; apply Texas three-part test, including maturity of claims |
| Whether plaintiff was required to amend Welsh I to capture later-occurring claims | Welsh: unreasonable to require repeated amendments for continuing employment injuries | FBISD: plaintiff should have amended to include all claims through amendments | Court: Rejects requirement to amend for claims that had not yet accrued at filing; amendment not always required |
| Applicability of prior Fifth Circuit decisions (Davis) | Welsh: Davis factually different and uses federal law; not controlling | FBISD: Davis supports broad preclusion | Court: Distinguishes Davis; Texas law controls and Davis is inapposite when later conduct occurred after first suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794 (Tex. 1992) (res judicata does not bar claims that could not have been litigated earlier due to legal hurdles)
- Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (Texas three-part res judicata test and discussion of compulsory counterclaims)
- Ben C. Jones & Co. v. Gammel Statesman Pub. Co., 99 S.W. 701 (Tex. 1907) (continuing contract causes accruing after a suit are not precluded by earlier suit)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp., 997 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1999) (compulsory counterclaim rule requires mature claims be pleaded; later-accruing claims may be added by amendment)
- Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004) (federal res judicata decision distinguished because all conduct there predated the first suit)
- Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard of de novo review for application of res judicata)