Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 22, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
FRED JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v. No. 14-9619
(MSPB -1: DE-1221-14-0012-W-1)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS (Merits Systems Protection Board)
AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, MCKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal involves the application of res judicata. The petitioner, Mr.
Fred Johnson, was fired by the Department of Veterans Affairs. He proceeded in
arbitration, unsuccessfully claiming that the firing involved retaliation for
submitting a claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Years
*
The parties have asked us to decide the appeal based on the briefs, and we
conclude that oral argument would not prove beneficial. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have declined to require oral argument.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
later, Mr. Johnson submitted an administrative claim to the Merit Systems
Protection Board, alleging retaliation for a different purpose (for reporting an
altercation). The Board dismissed the claim on the ground of res judicata. Mr.
Johnson appeals, requiring us to decide: Does res judicata preclude assertion of a
claim that could have been brought in the arbitration proceedings? We conclude
that res judicata applies in these circumstances. As a result, we affirm.
I. Standard of Review
We engage in de novo review over the Board’s application of res judicata.
MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2005).
II. Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata prevents assertion of a claim that could have
been brought in an earlier proceeding that culminated in the entry of a final
judgment. MACTEC, Inc., 427 F.3d at 831. Four elements exist:
1. entry of a final judgment in the earlier proceedings,
2. identity or privity of the parties in the two suits,
3. identity of the cause of action in both suits, and
4. a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in the earlier
proceedings.
In re Mersmann, 505 F.3d 1033, 1049 (10th Cir. 2007); Plotner v. AT&T Corp.,
224 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2000). 1
1
We have sometimes stated that only three elements exist, recognizing an
exception to res judicata when the claimant lacked a full and fair opportunity to
2
III. Application of Res Judicata
Engaging in this review, we conclude that the four elements are present.
The first element is satisfied because the earlier proceeding resulted in the
entry of a final arbitration award. See id. (“As for finality, a valid and final award
by arbitration generally has the same effect under the rules of res judicata as a
judgment of a court.”).
The second element is satisfied because Mr. Johnson and the Department of
Veterans Affairs were parties in the two proceedings (the arbitration and
administrative proceedings brought before the Merit Systems Protection Board).
The third element is satisfied because Mr. Johnson has brought the same
cause of action in the two proceedings. In applying the third element, we apply a
transactional approach. Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture,
835 F.2d 1329, 1335 (10th Cir. 1998). Under this approach, the earlier cause of
action for retaliation included all claims or theories of recovery that had arisen
from the same event. Nwosun v. General Mills Rests., Inc., 124 F.3d 1255, 1257
(10th Cir. 1997). Multiple claims arising from the same employment relationship
constitute the same event. Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1202 (10th
Cir. 2000). Under this test, the third element is satisfied because Mr. Johnson’s
litigate the matter in the earlier proceedings. Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222,
1226 n.4 (10th Cir. 1999); MACTEC, Inc., 427 F.3d at 831 n.6. Other times, we have
referred to the “full and fair opportunity” as a fourth element of res judicata. In re
Mersmann, 505 F.3d at 1049. The difference in approaches does not affect our
decision.
3
claims in the two proceedings are based on the same event: his firing from the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
The fourth element is satisfied because the arbitration provided a full and
fair opportunity to hear his present claim. He denies that opportunity, presenting
two arguments:
1. His union did not allow members to arbitrate claims involving
individual rights or whistleblower actions.
2. He was not informed of all his available remedies after the firing.
We reject both arguments.
The first argument is unpreserved and invalid because the present claim
could have been brought in arbitration.
In the administrative proceedings, Mr. Johnson did not question his prior
opportunity to arbitrate a retaliation claim. Thus, the argument is forfeited. See
Gorsuch, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1239 (10th Cir.
2014). Ordinarily, we could consider whether the Board committed plain error.
See id. But Mr. Johnson has not argued plain error. As a result, we decline to
consider the possibility of plain error. See Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070, 1095
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 271 (2014).
But Mr. Johnson’s new argument would remain invalid even under de novo
review. Individual employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement
between the union and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under that agreement,
4
employees can submit a grievance regarding any matter relating to employment or
misapplication of a law affecting the conditions of employment. Master
Agreement, art. 42, § 2(A); see Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 625
F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that a letter, objecting to
termination of employment, constituted a grievance under Article 42 of the
collective bargaining agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs). Thus,
Mr. Johnson could have submitted a grievance if he believed he had been fired for
reporting an altercation. In fact, the earlier arbitration included a grievance that
his firing involved retaliation for filing a claim with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. R. at 237, 250, 371-73. Thus, Mr. Johnson could have
included his present claim in the earlier arbitration.
Mr. Johnson argues that he could not file a separate action while he was in
arbitration. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 16, 19. This argument reflects confusion
over the issue. Res judicata prevents Mr. Johnson from suing a second time on
claims that he could have asserted in the proceedings being arbitrated, and
nothing in the collective bargaining agreement would have prevented Mr. Johnson
from combining his two retaliation claims (for submitting a claim to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and for reporting an altercation) in a single
arbitration.
The second argument is that the agency failed to inform Mr. Johnson of all
his available remedies after his firing. For the sake of argument, we can assume
5
that the Board did not tell Mr. Johnson that he could arbitrate his present
retaliation claim. But even if the Board failed to disclose this remedy, it would
not have prevented a full and fair opportunity for Mr. Johnson to litigate his
present claim.
The fourth element is “focus[ed] on whether there were significant
procedural limitations in the prior proceeding, whether the party had the incentive
to litigate fully the issue, or whether effective litigation was limited by the nature
or relationship of the parties.” Sil Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1521
(10th Cir. 1990). Mr. Johnson has not argued that there were any procedural
limitations in the arbitration proceeding and we see no reason to question the
fairness of the proceeding. Under these circumstances, Mr. Johnson enjoyed a full
and fair opportunity to litigate his present claim in the earlier proceedings even if
the Board had not fully disclosed all available remedies. See Kremer v. Chem.
Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 480-81 (1982) (holding that res judicata applies
unless “there is reason to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness of
procedures followed in prior litigation”). 2
2
Mr. Johnson argues that because he did not know about his available remedies,
his election of remedies is not binding. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 13. But our issue
involves res judicata rather than election of remedies. Election of remedies was an
issue in the Board proceedings, but not on appeal. See R. at 137. Here our issue
involves res judicata, rather than election of remedies, and the claims are subject to
res judicata even if Mr. Johnson did not know about his available remedies at the time
of the earlier proceedings. See W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871-72 (9th Cir.
1992) (“Ignorance of a party does not . . . avoid the bar of res judicata unless the
ignorance was caused by the misrepresentation or concealment of the opposing
6
Mr. Johnson also argues that the Board should have told him he could
request corrective action by the Office of Special Counsel. Appellant’s Opening
Br. at 18-19. But this argument does not bear on any of the elements of res
judicata. 3
Because the four elements are satisfied, the doctrine of res judicata
prevented Mr. Johnson from suing anew — notwithstanding the invocation of a
new legal theory — after he had bypassed a full and fair opportunity to include
the present claim in the arbitration.
Mr. Johnson argues in his reply that he was a good employee and should
not have been fired. But this argument involves the merits rather than the
applicability of res judicata. Because Mr. Johnson cannot avoid the doctrine of res
judicata, we decline to reach the merits of the underlying retaliation claim.
The Merit Systems Protection Board applied res judicata, dismissing the
suit based on satisfaction of the four elements. We agree with the Board; as a
result, we affirm.
party.”); Harnett v. Billman, 800 F.2d 1308, 1313 (4th Cir. 1986) (discussing the
general rule that res judicata would remain applicable even when the plaintiff was
unaware of his present claim at the time of the earlier proceedings).
3
Mr. Johnson ultimately did file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
R. at 1968. The Office of Special Counsel declined to investigate because Mr.
Johnson had already filed a grievance over his firing. Id.7
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
8