Fields v. United Parcel Service
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [# 2 ] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in writing and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, w hy this case should not be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall attach to his response toshow cause a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.( Show Cause Response due by 12/25/2013.). Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 11/25/2013. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MITCHELL D. FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:13CV2101 JCH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of plaintiff for leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the
application, the Court finds that the applicant is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to show cause why
this action should not be summarily dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
Background
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of the case and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A
case can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) even if the action is barred by an
affirmative defense. E.g., Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff, Mitchell D. Fields, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. for retaliation.1
Plaintiff also appears to be alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. for alleged disability discrimination and
retaliation. Named as the defendant in this action is his former employer, United
Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”).
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was employed by UPS for almost thirty
(30) years until he was terminated in 2009. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected
to retaliation by UPS after he filed a lawsuit against the Company in 2002 for
allegedly denying him medical treatment after he suffered a workplace injury.
Plaintiff states that from November of 2009 until his termination, UPS took
1
The Court presumes that plaintiff is filing his claims pursuant to federal
question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as he has brought this matter in
federal Court and has not indicated that he is bringing his claims pursuant to
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Title VII plaintiffs are required to
exhaust their administrative remedies with the EEOC, or the comparative state
agency, before bringing a formal action. Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 628
F.3d 980, 989 (8th Cir.2011); see also, Harris v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 339 F.3d
635, 638 (8th Cir.2003) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies requires
dismissal of ADA action, precluding plaintiff from obtaining review of his ADA
claim). Plaintiff should attach a copy of his Notice of Right to sue from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to his response to show cause.
-2-
adverse actions against him and subjected him to retaliatory discipline and
disability discrimination in relation to his diabetes. Plaintiff asserts that UPS
eventually terminated his employment in retaliation for exercising his rights under
Title VII.
Procedural History
The instant action is at least the third lawsuit plaintiff has filed against his
prior employer in this Court. On January 11, 2002, plaintiff filed a civil complaint
against UPS alleging violations of race discrimination under Title VII. See Fields
v. UPS, 4:02CV61 JCH (E.D. Mo.). As noted above, in his lawsuit, plaintiff
asserted that UPS had discriminated against him on May 2, 2000, by failing to
give him prompt medical treatment following an injury on the job, and by asking
that he take a drug test prior to receiving medical treatment. Summary judgment
was granted for UPS in that case, and plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with
prejudice. Id. at Doc. #36 and #37. Judgment was affirmed on appeal. See Fields
v. UPS, No. 03-2290 (8th Cir. 2004).
On March 30, 2011, plaintiff filed a second action against UPS, in a case
startling similar to the one at hand. See Fields v. UPS, 4:11CV581 CDP (E.D.
Mo). In that case, plaintiff alleged employment discrimination on the basis of his
disability and retaliation, both in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act
-3-
(“MHRA”), Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.010, et seq. His complaint alleged that UPS
discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, caused by diabetes and
high blood pressure, by terminating him for making excessive stops,2 which he
claimed were necessary because of his medical conditions. Plaintiff further
alleged that his termination from UPS was based in part on his filing of a
discrimination charge (and the resultant lawsuit) against UPS in 2000.
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry granted UPS’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Id. at Doc. #27 and #28.
Judgment was affirmed on appeal. See Fields v. UPS, No. 12-3827 (8th Cir.
2013).
Discussion
The principle behind the doctrine of res judicata is that “[f]inal judgment on
the merits precludes the relitigation of a claim on any grounds raised before or on
any grounds which could have been raised in the prior action.” Poe v. John Deere
Co., 695 F.2d 1103, 1105 (8th Cir.1982) (citing Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v.
Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)). “Res judicata prevents the splitting of a single
cause of action and the use of several theories of recovery as the basis for separate
lawsuits.” Friez v. First Am. Bank & Trust of Minot, 324 F.3d 580, 581 (8th
2
Plaintiff worked for UPS as a tractor trailer, or “feeder,” driver.
-4-
Cir.2003) (citing Hartsel Springs Ranch v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 986
(10th Cir.2002)).
Under Eighth Circuit law, in order for a claim to be precluded under the
doctrine of res judicata due to a determination reached in a prior lawsuit, the
following five elements must be satisfied: “1) the first suit resulted in a final
judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based on proper jurisdiction; (3) both
suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with them); and (4) both suits are
based upon the same claims or causes of action. Furthermore, the party against
whom res judicata is asserted must [ (5) ] have had a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect.”
Rutherford v. Kessel, 560 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir.2009) (citations omitted).
The doctrine of res judicata appears to apply in this case. The Honorable
Catherine D. Perry entered a judgment, on the merits, in the 2011 lawsuit plaintiff
brought against UPS alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. In the
earlier case, the Court granted judgment to UPS, as a matter of law, after discovery
had been completed and the parties had submitted summary judgment memoranda.
The Court believes that each of the five factors necessary for res judicata to
apply have been met in this case. The parties are the same in both cases and both
suits are based upon the same claims. Under res judicata, a party's claim is barred
-5-
“if it arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim .” Banks
v. Int'l Union Electronic, Elec., Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, 390
F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir.2004).
The factual allegations contained in plaintiff's state law MHRA claims
before Judge Perry mirror the factual allegations contained in his current
complaint containing his federal law claims. The only discernible difference
between the two pleadings is that plaintiff brought his state claims pursuant to the
MHRA, while he brings the instant complaint pursuant to the ADA and Title VII.
This is of no comport. Since this Court is one of competent jurisdiction, the prior
action was dismissed with prejudice and was a final judgment on the merits, and
the current case involves the same facts, the same parties, and the same issues (or
issues that could have been raised in his prior action), res judicata precludes
plaintiff's current action. See, e.g., Misischia v. St. John’s Mercy Health Systems,
457 F.3d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 2006) (“a prior judgment bars a subsequent claim
arising out of the same group of operative facts even though additional or different
evidence or legal theories might be advanced to support the subsequent claim”);
see also Baker v. Bradley, 2007 WL 465626,*3, No. 4:06CV200 RWS (E.D. Mo.
Feb. 8, 2007).
-6-
Finally, both parties have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect. Rutherford, 560 F.3d
at 877.
Because plaintiff is pro se, the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to
show cause why the case should not be dismissed, as barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Memorandum and Order or failure to
show adequate cause will result in the dismissal of this case.
Accordingly
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in writing
and no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, why this case
should not be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall attach to his response to
show cause a copy of his Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2013.
/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?