Whitaker v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services
45 F. Supp. 3d 876
E.D. Wis.
2014

Background

  • Whitaker, a correctional officer, injured her back in 2005 and again in 2010, resulting in permanent work restrictions and intermittent/continuous FMLA leave; DHS accommodated restrictions but terminated her employment for medical reasons in November 2010.
  • Whitaker filed an EEOC charge and received a Notice of Right to Sue; she then sued pro se in 2012 under the ADA against DHS and Milwaukee County but did not assert a Rehabilitation Act claim in that suit.
  • Judge Stadtmueller granted DHS’s motion (based on Eleventh Amendment immunity) and dismissed DHS from the 2012 case; Whitaker’s later attempts to amend to add a Rehabilitation Act claim and rejoin DHS were denied as untimely.
  • In 2018 Whitaker filed a new suit asserting a Rehabilitation Act claim against DHS; DHS moved to dismiss this suit under claim preclusion (res judicata).
  • The district court evaluated whether the earlier dismissal of Whitaker’s ADA claim on Eleventh Amendment grounds constituted a final judgment on the merits that would preclude the later Rehabilitation Act claim.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Whitaker’s Rehabilitation Act suit is barred by claim preclusion based on the earlier ADA dismissal Whitaker contends the earlier dismissal does not preclude her Rehabilitation Act claim; the statutes and immunity analysis differ DHS argues the prior final judgment dismissing Whitaker’s ADA claims against DHS bars relitigation of the same facts Denied. The court held the prior dismissal for Eleventh Amendment immunity was not a judgment on the merits for claim preclusion purposes, so the Rehabilitation Act suit is not precluded
Whether dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is a dismissal "on the merits" for res judicata Whitaker argues Eleventh Amendment dismissal is not on the merits and thus not preclusive DHS argues the dismissal (labeled "with prejudice") is final and should preclude relitigation Court held Eleventh Amendment immunity functions like waivable defenses (personal jurisdiction/venue) and does not resolve the substantive legal sufficiency of the claim, so it is not a merits dismissal
Whether the parties and operative facts are identical for claim preclusion Whitaker concedes the facts are the same but argues the earlier ruling did not resolve the merits DHS notes the parties and operative facts overlap and prior judgment was final as to DHS in that case Court found parties and operative facts the same but finality here did not equate to a merits judgment; claim preclusion therefore inapplicable
Whether any issues decided in the first case bind Whitaker now Whitaker argues she is not relitigating any decided issue because the earlier decision only addressed immunity under ADA DHS argues the prior judgment should have preclusive effect on matters decided Court held only the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue was decided previously; because immunity may differ under ADA vs Rehabilitation Act, prior decision does not bind the new claim

Key Cases Cited

  • Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2010) (procedural posture for raising claim-preclusion defenses)
  • Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 1997) (courts may take judicial notice of public records in prior cases on a Rule 12 motion)
  • Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (res judicata prevents relitigation of claims arising from same transaction)
  • Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2011) (same-opErative-facts test for identical causes of action)
  • Matrix IV, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 649 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2011) (cause-of-action identity depends on same set of operative facts)
  • Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2006) (court may independently characterize prior judgment’s preclusive effect)
  • Higgins v. Mississippi, 217 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2000) (Eleventh Amendment treated as an affirmative defense)
  • Schacht v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) (Eleventh Amendment defenses are waivable and need not be raised sua sponte)
  • e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2007) (prosecutorial/defensive obligations regarding jurisdictional defenses)
  • Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 657 F.2d 939 (7th Cir. 1981) (definition of judgment "on the merits")
  • Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (immunity analysis must be performed separately for different statutory claims)
  • Amundson ex rel. Amundson v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health Servs., 721 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2013) (Eleventh Amendment analysis may differ between ADA and Rehabilitation Act)
  • Okoro v. Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir. 1999) (non-merits judgments can have limited preclusive effect)
  • Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272 (7th Cir. 1983) (scope of preclusion from non-merits judgments)
Read the full case