Smith v. The Curators of the University of Missouri
2:17-cv-04016
W.D. Mo.Dec 13, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Pamela J. Smith previously filed consolidated suits in state court (2007 and 2008) alleging hostile work environment, race/gender claims, and disability discrimination/retaliation; the consolidated case was removed to federal court (No. 08-4230-CV-C-GAF).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated federal case for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); the court issued an order to show cause after Smith failed to respond.
- Smith did not respond to the order to show cause; the federal court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice on May 27, 2009.
- Smith later filed the instant suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation based on chronic fatigue syndrome, which includes allegations of conduct occurring before May 27, 2009.
- Defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence or recovery for any alleged discrimination or retaliation occurring prior to May 27, 2009, arguing those claims were previously litigated and dismissed (collateral estoppel/issue preclusion).
- The magistrate judge granted the motion: the court found the four elements of collateral estoppel satisfied and excluded pre-May 27, 2009 incidents from evidence and recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged disability discrimination/retaliation before May 27, 2009 are barred by collateral estoppel | Smith maintains current suit may include pre-2009 acts as part of her disability claims | Curators contend the 2009 dismissal with prejudice on failure to prosecute bars relitigation of those pre-2009 acts | Court held pre-2009 incidents are barred: collateral estoppel applies and evidence/recovery for those incidents is excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1990) (defines collateral estoppel/issue preclusion elements)
- Luney v. SGS Auto. Servs., Inc., 432 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissal operates as dismissal on the merits)
- Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645 (8th Cir. 2009) (issue preclusion applies even if the party did not take advantage of the prior opportunity to litigate)
- Meyers v. Roy, 714 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2013) (full and fair opportunity to litigate analyzed by reference to procedural due process)
- Bowers v. Highland Dairy Co., 188 S.W.3d 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (state-law discussion of issue preclusion elements)