Peter Daza v. State of Indiana
2 F.4th 681
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Peter Daza was fired from the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) in December 2015 and sued INDOT and officials in 2017 alleging race, color, age, political-speech discrimination and retaliation (Daza I).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants in Daza I; this was affirmed by this Court in Daza v. Indiana, 941 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2019).
- Twenty-six days after the district court dismissed Daza I, Daza filed a second suit (Daza II) that repeated the prior discrimination/retaliation claims and added a failure-to-rehire theory (claiming INDOT hired a younger, inexperienced white replacement).
- In Daza I, in opposing summary judgment, Daza had argued INDOT’s failure to rehire and hiring a less-qualified replacement evidenced discrimination/retaliation, but presented no evidence he reapplied or that his EEOC charge affected rehiring.
- The district court dismissed Daza II as barred by claim preclusion and alternatively granted summary judgment on the merits for failure to state a cognizable failure-to-rehire claim; the Seventh Circuit affirmed on claim-preclusion grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars Daza's second suit | Daza: failure-to-rehire is a new, separate claim not adjudicated in Daza I | INDOT: same parties and the failure-to-rehire theory arises from the same transaction/operative facts already litigated | Court: preclusion applies — failure-to-rehire falls within the common nucleus of facts litigated in Daza I |
| Whether awaiting an EEOC right-to-sue letter or incomplete discovery excuses claim-splitting | Daza: lacked a right-to-sue letter and needed more discovery to develop rehiring evidence | INDOT: administrative exhaustion or discovery shortfalls do not permit split claims; events predated dismissal of Daza I | Court: exhaustion and discovery complaints do not excuse claim-splitting; the rehiring facts existed during Daza I and were litigated |
| Whether the failure-to-rehire claim is meritorious | Daza: INDOT’s decision not to rehire and hiring a younger, inexperienced replacement shows discrimination/retaliation | INDOT: no evidence Daza reapplied or that his EEOC charge played any role in rehiring | Court: district court also found no evidence of reapplication or causal link; although affirmed on preclusion, the alternative merits ruling was that the rehiring claim lacked necessary proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Daza v. Indiana, 941 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming summary judgment in the earlier suit)
- Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020) (scope of claim-preclusion: claims arising from same transaction/common nucleus)
- Barr v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Ill. Univ., 796 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2015) (claim-splitting barred when new claims are factually linked to earlier suit; right-to-sue waiting does not excuse split)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (final judgment on the merits bars further claims based on same cause of action)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (federal common law applies to preclusion when prior judgment is federal)
- Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (1985) (full faith and credit governs preclusion when prior judgment is from state court)
- Perry v. Globe Auto Recycling, Inc., 227 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2000) (elements for claim preclusion: identity of parties, identity of claims, prior final judgment on merits)
- Daza v. State, 331 F. Supp. 3d 810 (S.D. Ind. 2018) (district-court opinion describing that Daza raised failure-to-rehire in opposition to summary judgment but lacked evidence of reapplication or causation)