Christopher v. Houston Community College System

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 10 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time for Submission Date for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 6 MOTION for Extension of Time for Submission Date for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Grounds of Res Judicata.(Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STACY L. CHRISTOPHER,

§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-4372

§
§
§
§
§
§

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending is Defendant Houston Community College System's Motion
for Summary Judgment on the Grounds of Res Judicata (Document
No. 5 ) ,

to which Plaintiff Stacy L. Christopher has filed no

response and which is therefore deemed unopposed pursuant to Local
Rule 7.4.

After carefully reviewing the complaint, motion, the

uncontroverted record evidence, and the applicable law, the Court
concludes that the motion should be granted.

I.

Backqround

A portion of the factual background

for this employment

retaliation case may be found in this Court's Memorandum and Order
dated February 9, 2012.
Community Colleqe
( "Christopher

It,)
.

See Stacy L. Christopher v. Houston

System, No.
In

4:lO-cv-4101, Document No.

Christopher

Plaintiff Stacy L. Christopher's

I,

the

Court

25

dismissed

("Plaintiff") Title VII race

discrimination claim against Houston Community College System
(\\HCCn). d at 16.
I.

In connection with his discrimination claim,

Plaintiff had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on
June 16, 2010, alleging that he had been denied a promotion on the
basis of race.'

Plaintiff now alleges that HCC retaliated against

him for filing the charge with the EEOC by (1) removing Plaintiff
from the summer 2010 roster, which meant he was not given any
teaching

assignments

throughout

the

summer

of

2010 ;

and

(2) reducing Plaintiff's class-load from three classes to a single
class for the fall of 2010.3

Plaintiff filed Christopher I on

October 25, 2010 and the instant action on December 12, 2011, both
after the alleged retaliatory acts occurred.
11.

Res Judicata

HCC argues that the judgment in Christopher I has preclusive
effect on subsequent actions against it which are based on the same
nucleus of operative facts and which could have been brought in the
previous action.

"The preclusive effect of a prior federal court

judgment is controlled by federal res judicata rules."

Ellis v.

Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 2000).

The

elements of res judicata are: (1) the parties in the second action

Document No. 1
2

nn

~d. 25-26.

I .1 2 7 .
d

1

24.

are the same, or in privity with, the parties in the first action;
(2) judgment in the first case was rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (3) there has been a final judgment on the merits;
and (4) the same claim or cause of action is involved in both
suits.

I.
d

HCC correctly argues that the first three elements of res
judicata are easily met. The parties are the same in both actions,
and this Court, a court of competent jurisdiction, issued a final
judgment on the merits.

See Christopher I.

With respect to the fourth element, the Fifth Circuit applies
the transactional test to determine whether two suits involve the
same claim.

See Southmark Prop. v. Charles House Corp., 742 F.2d

862, 870-71 & n.12 (5th Cir. 1984) .

"Under the transactional test,

a prior judgment's preclusive effect extends to all rights of the
plaintiff 'with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or
series of connected transactions, out of which the
action arose.'"

[original]

Davis v. Dallas Area R a ~ i d
Transit, 383 F.3d 309,

313 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Petro-Hunt. L.L.C. v. United States,
365 F.3d 385, 395-96 (5th Cir. 2004)).

"Res judicata prevents

litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were
previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they
were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding."

Brown v.

Felsen, 99 S. Ct. 2205, 2209 (1979) (superseded on other grounds by
Bankruptcy Code) .

Here,

the

alleged

complains--the removal

retaliatory
from the

acts

of

summer 2010

which

Plaintiff

roster and

the

reduction in the number of classes assigned to him in the fall of
2010--arise out of or result from the same transaction as in
Christopher I and pre-date its filing; they therefore could have
been included in that action.

See Matter of Howe, 913 F.2d 1138,

1144 (5th Cir. 1990) ("The rule is that res judicata 'bars all
claims that were or could have been advanced in support of the
cause of action on the occasion of its former adjudication,

. . .

not merely those that were adjudicated.'" (quoting Nilsen v. City
of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1983) (emphasis in
original))

.

Moreover, any contention that Plaintiff had not received his
right to sue letter from the EEOC, and therefore could not include
the retaliation claims in Christopher I, is without merit.
Davis, the Fifth Circuit held:
[A] plaintiff who brings a Title VII action and files
administrative claims with the EEOC must still comply
'with general rules governing federal litigation
respecting other potentially viable claims.' Because the
barred claims arose from the same nucleus of operative
fact as the claims in Davis I and they predate that
action, Appellants were on notice to include those
claims in Davis I. To prevent their claims from being
precluded, Appellants could have requested a stay in
Davis I until they received their letters.
383 F.3d at 316 (citations omitted).

If Plaintiff needed time in

order to add his retaliation claims, he could have moved for a stay

of Christopher I and litigated his retaliation claims in that case
after receiving his right to sue letter.

I . For the foregoing
d

reasons, the retaliation claims alleged in this case are barred by
res judicata.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant Houston Community College System's
Motion

for Summary Judgment on the Grounds of

Res Judicata

(Document No. 5) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff Stacy Christopher's
retaliation claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other pending
motions are DENIED.
The Clerk will enter this Order and provide a correct copy to
all parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas,

this

April,