Joseph v. Athanasopoulos
648 F.3d 58
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Joseph, a black Haitian woman, was employed as a waitress at HDMJ (Yesterday's Diner) from March 2004 to January 2006 by the Athanasopoulos brothers who owned and supervised HDMJ.
- Joseph alleges racial slurs, coercive sexual demands, and a knife threat by Peter Athanasopoulos; she was allegedly disciplined or terminated after complaints.
- In February 2005, Joseph alleges a knee injury occurred but was berated by Peter in a basement confrontation; she was terminated the following day.
- Joseph filed a March 7, 2006 EEOC charge and a NYSHRL complaint; the NYDHR found probable cause, held a hearing in 2007, and issued a sustaining order that HDMJ appealed.
- The Nassau County Supreme Court vacated the DHR order in 2007 and remanded; ALJ hearings in January 2008 culminated in a July 2008 DHR finding that Joseph’s claims were not credible; the DHR adopted the ALJ’s findings and dismissed in July 2008.
- Joseph filed an untimely Article 78 petition challenging the DHR’s dismissal, which the Nassau County Supreme Court dismissed as untimely on March 9, 2009; while the Article 78 petition was pending, Joseph filed a federal lawsuit in January 2009 asserting Title VII, ADA, and NYSHRL claims; the district court later dismissed on res judicata grounds and certified an interlocutory appeal on the res judicata issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a NY judgment dismissing an untimely Article 78 petition bars federal discrimination claims. | Joseph argues voir dire-like preclusion under Bray/Cloverleaf dynamics; res judicata should apply to bar federal claims. | HDMJ contends NY law precludes federal claims when the NY judgment rests on timeliness, not merits. | Certification warranted; question framed for NY Court of Appeals. |
| Whether Kremer/Elliott require treating a state timeliness dismissal as preclusive in a later federal action. | Bray and Cloverleaf provide tension on whether timeliness dismissals preclude later federal claims. | State-law res judicata governs preclusive effect; timeliness dismissal may be treated as merits-based under NY law. | Threshold issue is unsettled; court certifies to NY Court of Appeals. |
| Whether the district court should apply res judicata, or whether certification should alter the course of the case. | Federal claims should receive de novo trial in federal court following state proceedings. | State court preclusion rules control; federal court must respect NY judgments. | Court certifies the question to NY Court of Appeals; declines to resolve merits at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (full faith and credit; preclusion follows state law in Title VII context)
- University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986) (unreviewed state admin proceedings not preclusive in federal Title VII actions)
- Bray v. New York Life Insurance, 851 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1988) (timeliness dismissal treated as merits-based for res judicata; precludes in federal suit)
- Cloverleaf Realty of New York, Inc. v. Town of Wawayanda, 572 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009) (rejects strict Bray reading; addresses timeliness and preclusion; cites Tanges)
- Tanges v. Heidelberg North America, Inc., 687 N.Y.S.2d 604 (1999) (NY Court of Appeals; informs about distinction between statutes of repose and limitations)
- Russell Sage College, 54 N.Y.2d 185 (1981) (dismissal on limitations viewed as near-merits for res judicata in NY)
- Semtek International, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (dismissal for statute-of-limitations may not preclude in other jurisdictions)