Lucille Qualls Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff’s Title VII claim and prior Labor Management Relations Act brought in federal court arose from the same transaction for purposes of res judicata
• holding civil rights act claim barred by res judicata because both suits were based on the same factual predicate regardless of any new legal theory
• holding plaintiffs claim barred because she failed to take the “minimal steps necessary to preserve each claim” by either requesting a stay pending administrative proceedings or amending her original claim
• explaining that, for res judicata purposes, it “is this identity of facts surrounding the occurrence which constitutes the cause of action, not the legal theory upon which [the plaintiff] chose to frame her complaint”
• finding res judicata applied when the claims were “essentially” the same, even if the claims were brought under different legal theories
• explaining that, when a plaintiff is forced to file suit before she can exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to a Title VII claim, the plaintiff has “two available courses . . . to avoid the sting of res judicata”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).