Rust, Vanessa v. Alter Metal Recycling

Filing 33

ORDER that defendant Alter Metal Recycling may have until May 18, 2018, to submit supplemental briefing on its motion to dismiss, or withdraw its motion. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 5/4/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

VANESSA RAE RUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALTER METAL RECYCLING,

ORDER
16-cv-3-jdp

Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff Vanessa Rust brings this Title VII discrimination lawsuit about her
termination from defendant Alter Metal Recycling. Alter has filed a motion to dismiss the case
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), saying that Rust’s claims are barred by
the doctrine of claim preclusion, because Rust’s similar discrimination claims under the
Wisconsin Fair Employment Act were dismissed after a hearing by the state’s Equal Rights
Division. See Dkt. 18 and Dkt. 18-1.
Alter’s motion is severely underdeveloped. The only case Alter cites regarding the
application of claim-preclusion principles to employment-discrimination cases does not hold
that federal claims are claim precluded by previous ERD proceedings; instead, the court
concluded that the plaintiff’s Title IX claims were not claim precluded by the ERD proceedings
because the federal claims could not have been raised in those proceedings. Waid v. Merrill Area
Pub. Sch., 91 F.3d 857, 866 (7th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Fitzgerald v. Barnstable
Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled
similarly regarding a plaintiff’s disability-related claims. See Staats v. Cty. of Sawyer, 220 F.3d
511, 516 (7th Cir. 2000) (claim preclusion did not apply to plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation

Act claims because “it was impossible for [plaintiff] to raise his federal claims in addition to his
WFEA claims in his action brought before the Equal Rights Division”).
These cases do not specifically discuss parallel Title VII claims, and Alter has not
developed an argument for why Rust’s claims should be treated differently than the plaintiffs’
claims in Waid or Staats. I will give Alter a short time to either develop its argument in a
supplemental brief or withdraw its motion to dismiss. Should Alter file a supplemental brief, I
will give Rust a chance to respond, but Rust’s response should be limited to the legal issues
raised by Alter—she should not recite her version of the events underlying her claims, as she
did in her opposition to the motion to dismiss.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Alter Metal Recycling may have until May 18, 2018,
to submit supplemental briefing on its motion to dismiss, or withdraw its motion.
Entered May 4, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2