Sheila ALFORD, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1817 (KBJ)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Signed July 25, 2014
945 F.Supp.2d 120
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
Eric William Gunderson, Farrell & Gunderson, Columbia, MD, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
This is the second action that Plaintiff Sheila Alford (“Plaintiff” or “Alford“), a paraplegic who requires the use of a wheelchair, has filed against her former employer, Defendant Providence Hospital (“Defendant” or “Providence“), challenging the termination of her employment as an office worker at Providence Hospital. Alford filed the instant complaint on Novem
Presently before this Court is Defendant‘s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in which Providence argues that res judicata bars consideration of Alford‘s complaint. (See Def.‘s Mot. To Dismiss (“Def.‘s Mot.“), ECF No. 8.) This Court concludes that, because Alford could have brought the instant ADA claims in her prior lawsuit, the doctrine of res judicata precludes her from bringing them now. Accordingly, this Court will GRANT Defendant‘s motion to dismiss. A separate order consistent with this opinion will follow.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
This is the second case that Alford has filed against Providence alleging that her termination and related events constituted employment discrimination. See Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 98-111.1 Most of the relevant facts have already been detailed at length in Alford I, see id. at 101-03, so this Court will not reiterate them here in their entirety. For the purposes of the instant decision, however, a brief summary follows.
Alford worked as a secretary at Providence Hospital from July of 1983 until her termination on January 7, 2011. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 25.) Since 1991, she has been a paraplegic and, as a result, has needed to use a wheelchair. (Id. ¶ 2.) From August of 2009 through March of 2010, Alford took unpaid leave to recover from an injury to her hand that she suffered at work. Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 101; see also Amended Compl. (“Alford I Compl.“), Alford I, No. 11-02121 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2012), ECF No. 20. On April 2, 2010, just days after her return to the office, Alford injured her shoulder, head, and neck at work. Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 101. She took additional leave to recover from this second injury before returning to work once again on May 7, 2010. Id. at 101-02 & n. 1.
Months later, on December 3, 2010, Alford went to the emergency room after reporting shoulder pain in the same shoulder that she had injured in April. See id. at 102. On December 7, Alford saw her doctor and requested further leave until December 14 even though that doctor had approved her to return to work on the condition that she not lift anything over ten pounds. Id. Between December 15,
B. Procedural History
Following her termination, Alford filed two different complaints. On June 19, 2011, Alford filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“), alleging that her termination and associated events constituted disability discrimination in violation of the ADA. (Pl.‘s Mem. in Opp‘n to Def.‘s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.‘s Opp‘n“), ECF No. 9, at 2; EEOC Charge of Discrimination (“Charge of Discrimination“), Ex. A to Def.‘s Mot., ECF No. 8-2, at 1.)2 Months later, on November 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Alford I complaint, contending that the very same termination and related events violated her rights under the FMLA and the DCFMLA and gave rise to tort liability under D.C. law. (See Pl‘s Opp‘n. at 2.) See also Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 103.3
On March 29, 2013, while Alford I was still pending in the district court, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in Plaintiff‘s administrative ADA case, finding reasonable cause to believe that Providence had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability when it failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation and instead terminated her. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-33; EEOC Letter of Determination (“Letter of Determination“), Ex. 2 to Pl.‘s Opp‘n, ECF No. 10-4.) On April 18, 2013, the EEOC began an attempt to resolve the dispute through out-of-court conciliation between Alford and Providence. (Compl. ¶ 35; see also EEOC Proposed Conciliation Letter (“EEOC Conciliation Letter“), Ex. 3 to Pl.‘s Opp‘n, ECF No. 10-3.)4 Meanwhile, on May 23, 2013, the Alford I court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. See Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 111.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Standard For A 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss
A motion to dismiss pursuant to
When res judicata bars a claim, it is subject to dismissal under
Here, Alford did not attach any documents to her complaint, but both parties attached documents to their briefing on the instant motion to dismiss. Providence included Alford‘s administrative charge of discrimination alleging an ADA violation (see Charge of Discrimination, Ex. A to Def.‘s Mem., ECF No. 8-2), which this Court may consider as the plaintiff‘s administrative complaint, see Laughlin, 923 F.Supp.2d at 209. Alford attached various documents generated during the EEOC‘s administrative review of her claims, which this Court may consider because Plaintiff specifically referenced them in the complaint. See id. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 31-33 (letter of determination); id. ¶ 35 (letter of proposed conciliation); id. ¶ 36 (right to sue letter).) Finally, this Court may consider the facts and public records of Plaintiff‘s earlier case, Alford I. See Hemphill, 605 F.Supp.2d at 186.
B. The Doctrine of Res Judicata
Res judicata “bars relitigation of claims or issues that were or could have been litigated in a prior action.” Alaska Forest Ass‘n v. Vilsack, 883 F.Supp.2d 136, 141 (D.D.C.2012) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008)); see also Brown v. Mabus, 892 F.Supp.2d 115, 118 (D.D.C.2012) (noting that res judicata prevents parties from “relitigating in a separate proceeding any ground for relief which they already have had an opportunity to litigate[,] even if they chose not to exploit that opportunity, and regardless of the soundness of the earlier judgment.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The doctrine thus bars “parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate [and] protects their adversaries from the exposure and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979)). However, res judicata “does not preclude claims based on facts not yet in existence at the time of the original action . . . [and] does not bar a litigant from doing in the present what he had no opportunity to do in the past.” Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66-67 (D.C.Cir.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Put another way, res judicata “does not prevent parties from later bringing claims that would have been utterly impracticable to join in an earlier suit or those that could not have been anticipated when the first suit was filed.” Velikonja v. Ashcroft, 355 F.Supp.2d 197, 201 (D.D.C.2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Res judicata has two distinct aspects—claim preclusion and issue preclusion (commonly known as collateral estoppel)—that apply in different circumstances and with different consequences to the litigants.” Nader v. Democratic Nat‘l Comm., 590 F.Supp.2d 164, 168 (D.D.C.2008) (citing NextWave Pers. Commc‘ns, Inc. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 130, 142 (D.C.Cir.2001), and Novak v. World Bank, 703 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C.Cir.1983)). “[C]laim preclusion forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, while issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of any issue that was raised and decided in a prior action.” Ficken v. Golden, 696 F.Supp.2d 21, 32 (D.D.C.2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Claim preclusion, which “embodies the principle that a party who once has had a
With respect to whether two lawsuits involve the same “claims or cause of action,” see id. at 141, “it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute the cause of action, not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies.” Crabbe v. Nat‘l Self Serv. Storage, 955 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C.2013) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C.Cir.1984)). Thus, claim preclusion bars subsequent complaints arising from the same set of facts, even if the complaints bring claims under different statutes, or different legal theories. Vilsack, 883 F.Supp.2d at 142 (quoting Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481 n. 22 (1982)); see also Mwabira-Simera v. Sodexho Marriott Mgmt. Servs., 786 F.Supp.2d 395, 397 (D.D.C.2011) (“A cause of action, for the purposes of res judicata, comprises all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Polsby v. Thompson, 201 F.Supp.2d 45, 50-51 (D.D.C.2002) (“[E]ven though one group of facts may give rise to different claims for relief, upon different theories of recovery, there remains a single cause of action.” (citation omitted)).
To determine whether the facts of each lawsuit are similar enough to qualify as the same “cause of action,” the D.C. Circuit instructs courts to use a “transactional test” that looks at whether the claims arise from the same “nucleus of facts.” Apotex, 393 F.3d at 217 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To make this determination, courts consider “whether the facts [from each case] are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.” Id. (quoting I.A.M Nat‘l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1983)). Importantly, claim preclusion “does not only bar claims that were [actually] brought in a finally adjudicated suit; it also ‘forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously.‘” U.S. ex rel. Folliard v. Synnex Corp., 798 F.Supp.2d 66, 77-78 (D.D.C.2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting Nat‘l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 949). In practice, this means that if the plaintiff could have included, but did not include, certain facts in his initial lawsuit, he may not bring a second action stemming from those facts. See Nat‘l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 949; Folliard, 798 F.Supp.2d at 77-78.
III. ANALYSIS.
Providence argues that res judicata bars Alford‘s ADA claims because she should have brought them in Alford I. (See Def.‘s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.‘s Mem.“), ECF No. 8-1 at 2-6.) Alford responds that res judicata does not apply because she could not have litigated the instant claims in Alford I, since (1) that
Despite Alford‘s protests, this Court concludes that claim preclusion bars Plaintiff‘s complaint in its entirety. Three of the elements of the D.C. Circuit‘s test for claim preclusion are easily satisfied: (1) Alford and Providence are parties to both suits, and (2) the federal district court is one of competent jurisdiction that (3) resolved Alford I on a grant of summary judgment, which is a final judgment on the merits. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2-4.) See Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 104-11.7 Thus, the only element at issue is whether the claims in Alford I and the instant matter involve the same cause of action.
Applying the D.C. Circuit‘s “transactional test” to the case at bar, see Apotex, 393 F.3d at 217, it is clear beyond cavil that the FMLA and DCFMLA claims that Plaintiff litigated in Alford I and the ADA claims alleged here constitute the same “cause of action.” Both sets of claims turn on the same series of events that the Alford I court already considered in reaching its conclusion that Plaintiff‘s termination was lawful: (1) Alford‘s workplace injury of April 2, 2010; (2) Defendant‘s allegedly unlawful conduct between December 2010 and January 2011; and (3) Alford‘s termination effective January 7, 2011. See Alford I, 945 F.Supp.2d at 101. In fact, in the instant complaint Plaintiff repeats—sometimes verbatim—many of the factual allegations in the Alford I complaint. (Compare Compl. ¶¶ 6-10, 16-29 with Alford I Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14, 16-17, 20-32.)
What is more, the court in Alford I touched on the very issues at the heart of the instant matter—to wit, the weight-lifting restrictions doctors had imposed and whether Plaintiff could get to work
Plaintiff nonetheless insists that this case presents a different “cause of action” because it involves some new facts that were not included in Alford I. She offers two sets of facts that she contends are unique to the instant complaint: factual allegations about her ability to disassemble her wheelchair into smaller, more light-weight pieces so that she could actually get to work (see Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 2-3); and the administrative proceedings pertaining to her ADA claims, in particular the EEOC‘s determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that Providence had discriminated against Alford on the basis of her disability (id. at 4-5; see also Letter of Determination at 3). Certainly, the facts pertaining to Alford‘s ability to disassemble her wheelchair were available to her during Alford I, so Plaintiff could have used those facts to litigate her ADA claims at that time. See Nat‘l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 949; Folliard, 798 F.Supp.2d at 77-78. The EEOC‘s Letter of Determination likewise fails to stave off the preclusive effect of res judicata for two reasons. First, the EEOC issued the letter while Alford I was still pending; thus, Plaintiff could have raised it in the prior litigation. (See Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 3 (record citation omitted).) Moreover, even if Plaintiff did not learn about the Letter of Determination until after Alford I was resolved, the letter itself is of little consequence to proving a case of disability discrimination, since it is the facts of Providence‘s alleged discrimination—not the EEOC‘s view of the evidence—that gives rise to Alford‘s ADA claim. See Hodge v. United Airlines, 821 F.Supp.2d 180, 197 (D.D.C.2011). Thus, the instant complaint does not allege new facts that could not have been raised during Alford I, so the two cases present the same “cause of action.” See Nat‘l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 949; Folliard, 798 F.Supp.2d at 77-78.
Plaintiff‘s next contention—that the ADA‘s mandatory exhaustion requirements provide an escape hatch from claim preclusion on the grounds that she could not have brought her ADA claims in Alford I because those claims were still winding their way through the EEOC administrative process—fares no better. (See Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 7-11.) Cf. Nat‘l Pension Fund, 723 F.2d at 949 (noting that claim preclusion only applies to claims that “might have been litigated” in the prior action); Folliard, 798 F.Supp.2d at 77-78 (same). To be sure, ADA claims are subject to certain administrative exhaustion requirements that do not apply to the claims in Alford I. In particular, Plaintiffs may not file ADA claims in federal court without first receiving a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC. See Dahlman v. AARP, 791 F.Supp.2d 68, 74-75 (D.D.C.2011); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117. And the EEOC must issue a right-to-sue notice upon the plaintiff‘s request at any time after 180 days from filing of the administrative complaint or after determining its inability to bring a civil charge. Adams v. District of Columbia, 740 F.Supp.2d 173, 186 (D.D.C. 2010) (internal citations omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(a)(1). Unlike the ADA, the FMLA and DCFMLA have no exhaustion requirements, which means that a plaintiff‘s claims under these statutes are ripe for adjudication immediately upon the adverse employment action. See Cruz-Packer v. District of Columbia, 539 F.Supp.2d 181, 190 (D.D.C.2008) (no administrative exhaustion under the FMLA); Jackson v. Wilkes Artis, 565 F.Supp.2d 148, 152 n. 4 (D.D.C.2008) (same under the DCFMLA). Accordingly, Alford chose to proceed straight to court on her FMLA and DCFMLA claims, and she now contends that claim preclusion would unfairly punish her for not bringing her ADA claims before the EEOC determined that conciliation with Defendant was no longer possible; in other words, although she could have litigated all of her claims together in Alford I—a point Plaintiff appears to concede (see Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 3 n.2 (noting that Alford could have requested a right-to-sue letter in January 2012))—she should not be required to do so given the administrative exhaustion requirements and the fact that she did not actually receive a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC until August 20, 2013. (See Compl. ¶ 36.)
The facts alleged in the complaint and existing law belie Plaintiff‘s argument, for they make clear that Alford did not have to stand by idly awaiting a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC. A plaintiff in Alford‘s position who has certain claims that might be presented in federal court while parallel claims arising out of the same cause of action are making their way through the EEOC‘s administrative review channels at the same time has three options: (1) file the EEOC complaint, await its outcome, and then file all the claims simultaneously in the same complaint in district court; (2) file one administrative complaint and one complaint in federal court, then seek to stay the latter pending the outcome of the former; or (3) file both the EEOC complaint and the federal district court complaint, request a right-to-sue notice after 180 days, see
A court in this district addressed this scenario in Robinson v. District of Columbia, No. 99-1694, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14476 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2000). In that case, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that his employer, the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD“), had discriminated
So it is here. After her termination, Alford could have filed Alford I, requested a stay pending the outcome of the EEOC process, and amended her Alford I complaint at a later date; or, had Alford preferred to litigate sooner and chosen to forego the benefits of the EEOC process, she could have requested a right-to-sue notice in January of 2012, while Alford I was still in discovery, and sought to amend the district court complaint to add the ADA claim. (See Pl.‘s Opp‘n. at 3 n.2.) See Robinson, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14476, at *3-5. Alternatively, Alford could have kept her litigation powder dry, awaiting completion of the EEOC process, and then filed all of the claims in the same complaint in federal district court. See Howard, 302 Fed.Appx. at 182. Given the options at her disposal and the availability of the necessary facts, Alford certainly could have sought to consolidate all of her legal claims in a single action, and it was her responsibility to do so to avoid preclusion. See Churchill, 183 F.3d at 191 (noting that plaintiffs “should organize litigation that they are pursuing to avoid claim preclusion“). In other words, like the plaintiff in Robinson, Alford “did not have to sit on [her] rights[,]” and having chosen to do so, she “cannot now escape the consequences.” Robinson, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14476 at *13.
Undaunted, Alford makes a final attempt to distinguish her case from Robinson on the grounds that she was not simply awaiting an EEOC determination, but rather had chosen to participate in EEOC proceedings aimed at conciliation. (See Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 7.) In the Court‘s view, this fact makes matters worse for Alford, not better, because it means that she was actively engaged in settlement negotiations about claims that were simultaneously being litigated in federal court. Perhaps Alford reasoned that this “race to the finish” approach to final judgment would benefit her bottom line because she could get an offer from Defendants in the negotiations process and compare that sum to the
In the final analysis, it also important to note that Alford is not the only party with interests at stake in these cases; rather, Providence, as the defendant in both lawsuits, has a right of protection from “repetitious litigation involving the same causes of action[.]” Jenson v. Huerta, 828 F.Supp.2d 174, 179 (D.D.C.2011). There was little reason for Alford to believe that Providence would cooperate in the EEOC conciliation process while defending itself in a parallel federal lawsuit based on the same exact facts. Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 432 U.S. at 368. Even so, nothing in the text of the ADA or the FMLA suggests that conciliation provides an exception to claim preclusion, see Churchill, 183 F.3d at 192-94, and, indeed, allowing such a rule could encourage plaintiffs to manipulate the EEOC process simply to bring two separate suits against their employers. Just as in Robinson, Alford is not spared from res judicata merely because she allowed her ADA claims to meander through the administrative process. Alford took no steps to preserve her claims, and the facts presented compel only one result: claim preclusion bars the instant complaint in its entirety.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court concludes that claim preclusion bars Alford‘s claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant‘s motion to dismiss.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge