Plaintiff Kenya Watkins sued defendant Genesh, Inc. (doing business as Burger King) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The district court dismissed her lawsuit on timeliness grounds, and Watkins appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Kenya Watkins, a Black woman, worked for Genesh, Inc. (Burger King) from August 2014 to August 2015. Watkins alleges that during her employment, her manager subjected her to severe verbal, physical, and sexual harassment, including forcing her into a freezer and attempting to have sex with her, groping her, simulating sex with her while she worked, and telling her he would not promote her until she had sex with him.
In early 2016, Watkins filed a discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging violations of Title VII. In 2018, Watkins claims that Genesh contacted her then-employer, Church’s Chicken, and admonished them for hiring her. This led Watkins to file a second EEOC charge in 2019.
In August 2019, while both EEOC charges were still pending, Watkins sued Genesh in federal court, bringing a race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court dismissed this lawsuit in 2021, finding that Watkins’s allegations did not plausibly support that the harassment was racially motivated. In a footnote (Footnote 23) to this dismissal order, the district court noted that once the EEOC proceedings concluded, Watkins could file claims for sexual discrimination and harassment under Title VII.
In July 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for Watkins’s 2019 charge, but she did not pursue litigation. In April 2022, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2016 charge, finding reasonable cause to believe violations occurred. In July 2022, Watkins filed a second lawsuit against Genesh asserting claims under Title VII, § 1981, and Kansas state law. Genesh moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by claim preclusion and were untimely. The district court dismissed the lawsuit as untimely without reaching the claim preclusion issue, and Watkins appealed.
Legal Analysis
Claim Preclusion and Identity of Cause of Action
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds than the district court. The court determined that Watkins’s Title VII claims were barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) based on the prior dismissal of her § 1981 lawsuit. The court held that claim preclusion applies when three elements are established: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior action; (2) identity of parties in both suits; and (3) identity of the cause of action in both suits.
The court found that two elements were clearly satisfied: the parties were identical in both lawsuits, and the prior dismissal constituted a final judgment on the merits. The court then analyzed whether there was an “identity of cause of action” between the suits.
Applying the “transactional approach,” the court determined that both lawsuits arose from the same transaction—Watkins’s employment relationship with Genesh. The court emphasized that under this approach, a cause of action includes all claims or legal theories of recovery arising from the same transaction, event, or occurrence. The court concluded that Watkins’s Title VII claims in the second lawsuit involved the same underlying employment relationship as her § 1981 claims in the first lawsuit.
Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate Exception
The court addressed Watkins’s primary argument that she did not have a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” her Title VII claims in the first lawsuit because she had not yet received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The court relied heavily on its precedent in Wilkes v. Wyoming Department of Employment Division of Labor Standards, which held that the absence of a right-to-sue letter does not deprive a plaintiff of a full and fair opportunity to litigate Title VII claims.
Following Wilkes, the court explained that Watkins could have pursued procedural alternatives to preserve her Title VII claims, such as: (1) requesting a right-to-sue letter 180 days after filing her charge and then amending her complaint, or (2) filing her § 1981 claim, seeking a stay pending completion of the EEOC investigation, and then amending her complaint upon receipt of the right-to-sue letter.
The court rejected Watkins’s argument that Footnote 23 in the district court’s dismissal order had “specifically preserved” her Title VII claims from preclusion. The court found no legal basis for the proposition that a district court can prospectively strip a final judgment of its preclusive effect with respect to certain future claims.
The court acknowledged that claim preclusion places high demands on civil rights plaintiffs and that Watkins’s position seemed intuitively understandable, but concluded that Wilkes remained binding precedent and dictated the outcome in this case.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Watkins’s Title VII claims on claim preclusion grounds, holding that her failure to use available procedural alternatives to preserve those claims in her first lawsuit barred her from bringing them in a subsequent action.
Schrag on Law 