DocketNumber: No. X04 CV-0124541S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10471, 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 741
Judges: McLACHLAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/19/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
This employment case was filed by the plaintiff after the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed her claim for relief pursuant to Gen. Stat. §
The federal case proceeded to judgment before a jury and the plaintiff was awarded $5,030.00 in damages on her Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claim, which the parties agree is essentially the same as her CFEPA claim.
The parties agree that the first count of the complaint (the so-called Whistleblower claim) and the second count (the claimed violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights) both mirror the first cause of action in the federal case (a Section 1983 claim that her First Amendment rights were violated by the defendants in that action). The plaintiff agreed at oral argument that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the first two counts of her complaint based on the verdict in the federal lawsuit, and did not dispute that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on those counts based upon the doctrine of res judicata. The court entered summary judgment at oral argument on those counts.
The third count in the plaintiffs amended complaint, the CFEPA claim, remains. Both parties seek summary judgment. The plaintiff claims because she was prevented from litigating that specific CFEPA claim in the federal court that it still survives. Further, she argues, since the underlying issues of the CFEPA claim are identical to the issues giving rise to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claims upon which she prevailed in the federal lawsuit, she is entitled to an affirmative summary judgment. She acknowledges she would not be entitled to recover damages because her award of $5,030.00 was satisfied by the State after the federal trial. She seeks a judgment in her favor here so that she can CT Page 10472 make an application for attorney's fees in accordance with the Fair Employment Practices Act, an issue she was not able to litigate in the federal action.1 Defendant argues that because the underlying facts and claims of the Title VII action are identical to those set forth in the CFEPA, the doctrine of res judicata entitles it to judgment in this case on the third count.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The plaintiff argues that a recent Superior Court case McCall v. theCity of Danbury, CV99-03345855, 2001 WL105302, supports her proposition. In McCall, an unsuccessful police department applicant sued in federal court claiming that he was discriminated against because he was an African American, a Title VII violation. The District Court determined that his civil rights were not violated. He then brought a CFEPA claim in the State court, which found that the Title VII claim was essentially the same claim as the CFEPA claim under §
This case posits an unusual situation where both the plaintiff and CT Page 10473 defendant claim they are entitled to summary judgment on the related legal theories of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Both of those doctrines "protect the finality of judicial determinations, conserve the time of courts and prevent ways for litigation," Virgo v. Lyons,
It is helpful to discuss in more detail res judicata and collateral estoppel in order to determine the proper application of them to the facts of this case.
"Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is distinguishable from collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment, when rendered on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim. Slattery v. Maykut,
176 Conn. 147 ,156-57 ,405 A.2d 76 (1978). In contrast, collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating issues and facts actually and necessarily determined in an earlier proceeding between the same parties or those in privity with them upon a different claim. DeLaurentis v. New Haven,220 Conn. 225 ,239 ,597 A.2d 807 (1991)." Weiss v. Statewide Grievance Committee,227 Conn. 802 ,818 ,633 A.2d 282 (1993). Mazziotti v. Allstate Insurance Co.,240 Conn. 799 ,812 (1997). Emphasis added.
Both claim preclusion and issue preclusion "express no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest." State v. Ellis,
The defendant argues that all of the plaintiffs underlying claims have been litigated in the federal action and therefore she is precluded from bringing another action. Plaintiff however argues, perhaps hypertechnically, that since the issues or facts were determined in her favor in the federal court action, the defendant cannot dispute them and she is entitled to summary judgment on a collateral estoppel theory. She claims she is entitled to litigate the issue here of attorney's fees she was prevented from seeking in federal court, limited to her entitlement to fees and the amount of fees because of the favorable determination of the discrimination claim in the federal lawsuit. It is this argument which the state characterizes as "offensive". The question to be determined, therefore, is whether or not plaintiff should be permitted to use the doctrine of collateral estoppel as a sword rather than as a shield. It is noteworthy that plaintiff cites no case for such affirmative use of collateral estoppel nor has the court found such a case. The only reference to the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel in the Practice Book appear to be at § 10-50 which requires that res judicata be asserted as a special defense. The case of McCallv. the City of Danbury, 2001 WL 105302, (Conn. Super), cited and relied upon by the plaintiff, does support the proposition that summary judgment is an appropriate remedy where the federal courts have made a determination under Title VII of a state court case seeking relief under the Fair Employment Practices Act. Unfortunately for plaintiff, it is a case in which a defendant successfully used federal adjudication as a bar. The case of Virgo v. Lyons,
It would be impermissible to permit the plaintiff to use the doctrine of collateral estoppel affirmatively and internally inconsistent to say that "the issues were resolved in my favor in the first case and may not be relitigated by the defendant, but I am entitled to seek further damages." The defendant correctly notes that there was nothing that prevented plaintiff from seeking federal and state law relief in the State courts, see e.g., Craine v. Trinity College,
McLachlan, J.