VACCARO v. UNIQUE SCAFFOLDING SYSTEMS
2:21-cv-16657
| D.N.J. | Apr 29, 2022Background
- Vaccaro worked for Unique Scaffolding Systems (operations manager Michael Benson) from Sept. 2018–Mar. 2020 and alleges unpaid regular and overtime wages.
- Vaccaro filed a wage complaint with the NJDOLWD on Sept. 14, 2020; a Wage Collection Referee held a hearing on July 13, 2021 where Vaccaro appeared pro se and the referee ruled for defendants.
- Vaccaro did not appeal the agency decision within the 20-day statutory window and instead sued in federal court on Sept. 8, 2021 asserting FLSA, New Jersey Labor Law, NJWHL, and recordkeeping claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing claim preclusion (res judicata) based on the NJDOLWD judgment.
- The District Court held the agency judgment was valid, final, and on the merits as to New Jersey jobs; claims arising from NJ work are barred by res judicata and were dismissed with prejudice.
- The Court noted potential claims based on out-of-state or non-NJ work may not be precluded and allowed Vaccaro 30 days to amend if he can plead a good-faith basis and federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Vaccaro's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NJDOLWD adjudication is a valid, final, on-the-merits judgment that bars the same claims in federal court | The agency hearing was informal and Vaccaro appeared pro se, so res judicata should not bind him | The agency held a full hearing, Vaccaro had opportunity for counsel and appeal, but did not appeal; therefore the agency decision is final and preclusive | Court: Agency decision was on the merits and final; res judicata bars claims based on New Jersey jobs |
| Whether pro se status of Vaccaro prevents application of res judicata | Pro se appearance allegedly justifies exception to preclusion | There is no pro se exception; Vaccaro was warned of right to counsel and could request continuance | Court: No pro se exception; Vaccaro had adequate opportunity to litigate |
| Whether NJDOLWD lacked jurisdiction over out-of-state (federal, NY, PA, Port Authority) jobs so those claims are not precluded | Agency could not decide wages for non-New Jersey jobs, so federal suit should proceed on those claims | Defendants argue preclusion of claims decided by the agency | Court: Agrees agency lacked jurisdiction over non-NJ jobs, but Vaccaro's complaint alleged only FLSA and New Jersey claims; NJ job claims are precluded; Vaccaro may amend to assert non-NJ claims with jurisdictional allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 8 requires factual showing of entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966) (res judicata applies to administrative adjudications that act in a judicial capacity)
- In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2008) (elements of claim preclusion)
- Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel & Casino, Inc., 591 A.2d 592 (N.J. 1991) (state law test for claim preclusion)
- United States v. 5 Unlabeled Boxes, 572 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) (usage of res judicata encompasses claim and issue preclusion)
- Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 1999) (preclusive effect of a state agency judgment determined by state law)