Daza v. State of Indiana

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff employee’s action, alleging that defendant’s failure to rehire him into his former position constituted act of discrimination and unlawful retaliation. Dist. Ct. could properly find that doctrine of claim preclusion precluded plaintiff from proceeding in instant case, where: (1) plaintiff had previously filed 2017 claim against defendant, alleging that defendant terminated him from his position on account of his race, color, age and political speech and retaliated against him for making discrimination complaints; (2) plaintiff alleged in instant lawsuit that defendant failed to rehire him into his former position that was at issue in his 2017 action; and (3) plaintiff unsuccessfully asserted in his 2017 claim (that resulted in judgment in defendant's favor) that defendant’s failure to rehire him into his fomer position proved that defendant was attempting to cover up its discrimination and retaliation claims against plaintiff. Also, plaintiff conceded that 2017 action involved same parties as instant lawsuit and was resolved by final judgment on merits. Moreover, instant lawsuit fell within scope of 2017 claim for purposes of applying claim preclusion doctrine, where plaintiff explicitly raised in 2017 action same issue in instant lawsuit regarding defendant’s failure to rehire him in former position.