U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. IXL Learning, Inc.
3:17-cv-02979
N.D. Cal.Dec 4, 2017Background
- EEOC sued IXL Learning alleging Title VII retaliation on behalf of Adrian Scott Duane for a Glassdoor post; Duane previously filed and then voluntarily dismissed a prior lawsuit with prejudice.
- Concurrent with dismissal, Duane and IXL's lawyers exchanged emails in which IXL agreed it would not oppose Duane intervening in the EEOC action.
- Duane moved to intervene asserting the same Title VII claim the EEOC pursues, plus a new state-law claim and an expanded factual theory for Title VII.
- IXL consents to intervention only to the extent Duane adopts the EEOC’s claims; IXL argues the prior-with-prejudice dismissal bars Duane from asserting additional claims/theories (res judicata/claim-splitting).
- The parties’ communications about the effect of the dismissal are ambiguous and the record is incomplete and messy (emails, a counsel declaration, and poor briefing).
- Court grants intervention in full but allows IXL to pursue res judicata (and possibly statute-of-limitations) defenses later in discovery and at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duane may intervene in EEOC's suit at all | Duane (and EEOC) say IXL agreed not to oppose his intervention | IXL agreed only to allow intervention to assert EEOC's existing claims | Court: Intervention allowed; IXL may litigate defenses later |
| Whether the prior dismissal with prejudice precludes Duane from asserting additional claims (claim-splitting/res judicata) | EEOC says the dismissal and agreement preserved Duane's right to assert any claim not actually litigated previously | IXL says the dismissal bars any claims/theories beyond those in prior suit and beyond EEOC's complaint | Court: Record ambiguous; likely IXL is correct, but unresolved now—res judicata may be raised after discovery and at summary judgment |
| Whether Duane can add a state-law claim not in prior suit | EEOC supports allowing additional claim as preserved by the stipulation | IXL contends the state-law claim is precluded by the prior dismissal with prejudice | Court: Likely precluded, but not decided now; IXL may renew the argument later |
| Whether the parties’ communications created a binding waiver of res judicata by IXL | Duane/EEOC infer waiver from stipulation and emails | IXL argues emails show consent only to intervention for EEOC claims, no waiver of preclusion defenses | Court: Emails are ambiguous and the record is insufficient to find a meeting of minds; no current waiver found — issue preserved for later |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. IntelliGender, LLC, 771 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (res judicata can bar subsequent claims after dismissal with prejudice)
- Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (effect of dismissal with prejudice on later litigation)
- Chao v. A-One Medical Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (preclusive effect of prior actions)
- Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (res judicata doctrines in employment-related suits)
- Norfolk S. Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing claim-splitting and consent to intervention)
- Int'l Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Const. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Tr. Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1993) (standing and intervention principles related to related claims)