Bagenstose v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs Title VII claim could not proceed because the issue of whether he was discharged had had already been decided against him in previous actions in the District of Columbia courts that were given preclusive effect in his federal action
• holding that plaintiff’s Title VII claim could not proceed because the issue of whether he was discharged had had already been decided against him in previous actions in the District of Columbia courts that were given preclusive effect in his federal action
• holding that OEA’s finding, and the D.C. Court of Appeals’ subsequent affirmance of that finding, that plaintiff voluntarily retired in 1996, and was thus never discharged, was an issue “decided” by the OEA and entitled to preclusive effect in the district court proceeding
• holding that OEA’s finding, and the D.C. Court of Appeals’ subsequent affirmance of that finding, that plaintiff voluntarily retired in 1996, and was thus never discharged, was 17 an issue “decided” by the OEA and entitled to preclusive effect in the district court proceeding
• finding that a D.C. Court of Appeals affirmance of an OEA finding that a former teacher had voluntarily retired, and was thus never discharged, precluding the bringing of Title VII discrimination claims that arose from the teacher’s loss of his teaching position in federal court
• finding that a D.C. Court of Appeals affirmance of an OEA finding that a former teacher had voluntarily retired, and was thus never discharged, precluding the bringing of Title VII discrimination claims that arose from the teacher’s loss of his teaching position in federal court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).