 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strouss v. Michigan Department of Corrections6/28/2002
iation claim. Strouss, supra at 726-728. The court concluded that even assuming plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of retaliation, defendant articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her transfer and plaintiff failed to establish that it was a mere pretext for discrimination. Id. at 727-728. We note that the facts underlying plaintiff's state retaliation claim are identical to those in her federal retaliation claim. Because the federal court already determined that plaintiff failed to establish a valid retaliation claim relating to her transfer and alleged constructive discharge, we believe that the federal court would have included the state claims in its decision if it had been afforded the opportunity. See McKane v Lansing, 244 Mich App 462, 465-466; 625 NW2d 796 (2001) (holding that inherent in the federal court's decision was a decision on each state claim; therefore, res judicata bars relitigation of the decisions despite the fact that the federal court dismissed the state claims without prejudice). Consequently, we conclude that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from bringing this claim in state court and the circuit court properly granted summary disposition.
Affirmed.
Donald S. Owens
David H. Sawyer
Jessica R. Cooper
|