Reginald Davis v. City of Memphis
W2016-00967-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Reginald Davis, a Memphis firefighter employed since 1989, was suspended and terminated in May 2012 after media interviews about alleged misconduct and airport safety; he appealed his termination to the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission and sued in federal court alleging constitutional and statutory violations, including retaliation for protected speech.
- After a six-day federal jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, answering a single question that Davis (through his attorney) knowingly or recklessly made false statements about airport safety and an alleged assault.
- The City moved before the Civil Service Commission to dismiss Davis’s administrative appeal based on res judicata / collateral estoppel; the Commission granted the motion after briefing and dismissed the appeal, relying on the federal verdict and a federal summary judgment order on some claims.
- Davis sought chancery-court review; the chancery court affirmed the Commission, applying Tennessee res judicata law and finding Davis had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in federal court.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether federal or Tennessee preclusion law governed and whether the federal litigation precluded the civil-service appeal; it held federal preclusion principles apply to federal-court judgments and reversed the chancery court, concluding the Commission erred to the extent it dismissed the civil-service appeal on claim preclusion grounds because the federal forum did not fully adjudicate whether the City had just cause to terminate under civil-service standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court’s January 12 order was final for appeal timing | January 12 order wasn’t final because it omitted a ruling on attorney’s fees | Order was final; appeal untimely | Court: January 12 order not final; amended April 19 order valid; appeal timely |
| Whether the Commission erred in considering the City’s res judicata defense as untimely | City failed to give written preliminary notice as required; Commission shouldn’t consider it | Oral motion was proper; hearing continued and briefs allowed; no prejudice | Court: No unlawful procedure; Commission properly considered the defense after continuance and briefing |
| Whether federal or state law governs preclusive effect of federal judgment | (Davis) Charter allows concurrent federal suit; preclusion shouldn’t bar civil-service appeal | (City) Federal judgment should preclude relitigation under federal preclusion rules | Court: Federal res judicata/issue-preclusion law governs preclusive effect of federal-court judgments |
| Whether the federal litigation precludes the civil-service appeal (claim or issue preclusion) | Federal case did not decide whether City had just cause under civil-service standards; Davis lacked opportunity to litigate termination standards and progressive-discipline defenses | Federal verdict and summary judgment resolved the core factual and remedial issues, barring relitigation | Court: Reversed dismissal — federal proceedings did not fully adjudicate just-cause issue; Commission erred to dismiss on claim preclusion, though issue preclusion may apply to factual matters actually decided by the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (federal-court judgments’ preclusive effect governed by federal law)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (state courts must give federal-question judgments the preclusive effect prescribed by federal law)
- Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (res judicata includes claim and issue preclusion principles)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (claim preclusion bars claims that were or could have been raised)
- Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (claim preclusion inapplicable when plaintiff was unable to present a theory or remedy due to jurisdictional limits)