HANSON v. GREENVILLE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 56

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRUCE HANSON,
PLAINTIFF
V.

GREENVILLE SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-283-DBH

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The defendant has moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 32). I heard
oral argument on October 2, 2014. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
There are genuine issues of material fact on what motivated the school
superintendent and on whether she brought about the ultimate decision by the
School District that the plaintiff attacks in this lawsuit. I also find that the
plaintiff’s decision to dismiss with prejudice his Maine Whistleblower’s Act claim
in Count IV has not caused claim preclusion for his retaliation claims in Counts
I-III based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.,
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and Maine Human Rights Act, 5
M.R.S. §§ 4551 et seq. As yet, there has been no final judgment in a previous
action, one of the prerequisites for claim preclusion. See Hatch v. Trail King
Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2012) (“The three elements of claim
preclusion are: ‘(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier proceeding,
(2) sufficient identicality between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and

later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two actions.’”
(internal citations omitted)); Haag v. Shulman, 683 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 2012)
(“Res judicata commonly attaches if three requirements are discernibly present:
‘(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action; (2) an identity of the cause
of action in both the earlier and later suits; and (3) an identity of parties or privies
in the two suits.’” (internal citations omitted)); Silva v. City of New Bedford, 660
F.3d 76, 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Federal claim preclusion law bars a plaintiff from
litigating claims in a subsequent action that could have been, but were not,
litigated in an earlier suit.”).
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2