 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strouss v. Michigan Department of Corrections6/28/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We affirm.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a nurse. During her employment, plaintiff filed two sexual harassment complaints, in 1994 and 1997 respectively. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's representatives retaliated against her by filing fraudulent misconduct charges and ultimately transferring her to a different shift and facility. Plaintiff further claims that the transfer would have adversely impacted her ability to attend college and put her in proximity with two inmates who had threatened her in the past. Rather than accept the transfer, plaintiff resigned.
Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 USC 2000e-3, and a denial of due process and equal protection in violation of 42 USC 1983. The federal district court entered summary judgment for defendant, holding in part that plaintiff's Title VII claim, concerning her 1994 complaint, was barred by the statute of limitations. Strouss v Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 75 F Supp 2d 711, 723-724 (ED Mich, 1999), aff'd 250 F3d 336 (2001). The court further held that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation regarding her 1997 complaint because she failed to demonstrate a causal connection between her complaint and subsequent transfer. Id. at 724-727. After the federal court's decision, plaintiff instituted this action, alleging retaliation in violation of the Elliott- Larsen civil rights act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition on the grounds that plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff argues that the federal court's decision concerning her first complaint was not an adjudication on the merits and that the trial court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata barred her claim. We disagree.
We review a trial court's decision regarding a motion for summary disposition de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). MCR 2.116(C)(7) permits summary disposition when a claim is barred because of prior judgment. Maiden, supra at 118, n 3. "When reviewing a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), a court 'must accept as true a plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations, affidavits, or other documentary evidence and construe them in the plaintiff's favor.'" Brennan v Edward D Jones & Co, 245 Mich App 156, 157; 626 NW2d 917 (2001), quoting Jackson Co Hog Producers v Consumers Power Co, 234 Mich App 72, 77; 592 NW2d 112 (1999).
The applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law subject to review de novo on appeal. Ditmore v Michalik, 244 Mich App 569, 574; 625 NW2d 462 (2001). The doctrine of res judicata acts to bar subsequent litigation between the same parties when the facts or evidence essential to the two actions are identical. Sewell v Clean Cut Management, Inc, 463 Mich 569, 575; 621 NW2d 222 (2001). The doctrine of res judicata only applies when: (1) the earlier action was decided on the merits; (2) the decree in that action amounted to a final decision; (3) the matter contested in the second action was, or could have been, resolved in the previous action; and (4) both actions involved the same parties or their privies. Ditmore, supra at 576. Pursuant to Michigan's broad approach to the application of res judicata, the doctrine bars both claims that were actually brought by the parties in the earlier suit and also those that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have brought forward at
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|