 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strouss v. Michigan Department of Corrections6/28/2002
that time. Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 380; 596 NW2d 153 (1999). Res judicata generally serves to bar litigation based on the same events as a previous claim, regardless of whether the subsequent litigation is brought in a federal or state court. Id.
If a plaintiff has litigated a claim in federal court, the federal judgment precludes relitigation of the same claim in state court based on issues that were or could have been raised in the federal action, including any theories of liability based on state law. The state courts must apply federal claim-preclusion law in determining the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment. [Id. at 380-381, quoting 18 Moore, Federal Practice, ยง 131.21(3)(d), p 131-50.]
Plaintiff claims that the federal decision relative to her 1994 harassment complaint was not a decision on the merits because it was based on subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, the statute of limitations. A careful review of the federal court's decision reveals that the court held that the Title VII statute of limitations precluded plaintiff from litigating her 1994 claims concerning Wardell Brown and any of her allegations of retaliation stemming from 1994. Strouss, supra at 723-724. Under federal law, a summary judgment on the basis of the defense of the statute of limitations is a judgment on the merits. Nathan v Rowan, 651 F2d 1223, 1226 (CA 6, 1981). Moreover, according to Rivers v Barberton Bd of Education, 143 F3d 1029, 1032 (CA 6, 1998), a decision on the merits for any portion of the dismissal is adequate to preclude subsequent litigation of any claim that was raised, or could have been raised, in that action. Because we must apply federal law when determining the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment, Pierson Sand, supra at 381, we conclude that the federal district court's decision relating to plaintiff's 1994 harassment complaint was an adjudication on the merits.
Plaintiff further argues that according to our Supreme Court's decision in Pierson Sand, supra at 384, res judicata does not bar her state claims because her federal claims were dismissed before trial. In Pierson Sand, our Supreme Court held that when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, and there are no exceptional circumstances giving the federal court cause to retain supplemental jurisdiction, res judicata would be inapplicable in a subsequent state action. Id.
In the present case, we believe that exceptional circumstances exist and that the federal court would have retained jurisdiction over the state claims if plaintiff had raised them at that time. Indeed, the requirements to establish a violation of Title VII or the Elliott-Larsen civil rights act are extremely similar. To state a prima facie claim for retaliation under either law, plaintiff must establish that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) defendant knew about the exercise of her protected rights; (3) defendant subsequently took an employment action adverse to her; and (3) there was a causal connection between plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse employment action. Strouss, supra at 724; Meyer v Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 568-569; 619 NW2d 182 (2000). More importantly, for both federal and state retaliation claims, if the defendant articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the articulated reason is mere pretext for discrimination. Strouss, supra at 727-728; Roulston v Tendercare, Inc, 239 Mich App 270, 280-281; 608 NW2d 525 (2000).
Here, the federal court conducted a detailed analysis of plaintiff's retal
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.
|
|