Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that Congress intended federal courts to be bound further by state administrative decisions than by decisions of the EEOC. Since it is settled that decisions by the EEOC do not preclude a trial de novo in federal court, it is clear that unreviewed administrative determinations by state agencies also should not preclude such review even if such a decision were to be afforded preclusive effect in a state’s own courts. Kremer, 456 U.S. at 470 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. at 1891 n. 7. The Court thus drew a sharp distinction between state court judgments, which are entitled to deference under the res judicata principles of section 1738, and unreviewed state administrative determinations which are not. See also id. at 487, 102 S.Ct. at 1900 (Blackmun, J., with Brennan & Marshall, JJ., dissenting) (<HOLDING>); id. at 508-09, 102 S.Ct. at 1911-12 (Stevens, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing this distinction (B) recognizing the majority rule (C) recognizing majority rule and collecting cases (D) recognizing the boggs distinction (E) recognizing distinction made by majority
Output (English): recognizing the boggs distinction