Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_10-cv-00551/USCOURTS-alnd-5_10-cv-00551-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MARK E. BENNICK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. CV-10-S-551-NE

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

This action is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Upon

1

consideration, and for the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted. 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, 

[r]es judicata bars the filing of a claim when the following elements are

present: (1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was

rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in

privity with them, are identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of

action is involved in both cases. Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193

F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir.1999). Generally, if a case arises out of the

same “nucleus of operative fact” as a former case, the two cases are the

same for res judicata purposes. Id. at 1239. 

Singh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir. 2009). This case arises out

of the same nucleus of operative facts as the previous case brought before this court

by plaintiff, Mark E. Bennick, against defendant, The Boeing Company, in which a

See doc. no. 6 (defendant’s motion to dismiss). 1

FILED

 2010 May-27 PM 04:16

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:10-cv-00551-CLS Document 9 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 3
final judgment on the merits was rendered against plaintiff. See Bennick v. The

Boeing Company, No. 09-335, doc. no. 12 (N.D. Ala. April 24, 2009). Specifically,

plaintiff’s termination fromdefendant and defendant’s communication with plaintiff’s

subsequent employer, TeledyneBrown Engineering, regarding his alleged substanceabuse problems operate as the factual bases for both actions. Consequently, “the

same cause of action is involved in both cases,” and plaintiff’s claims in the present

suit are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Singh, 561 F.3d at 1280. See also

O’Connor v. PCA Family Health Plan, Inc., 200 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2000)

(holding that discrimination claims were barred because they arose from the same

employment termination at issue in a prior lawsuit brought under the Family and

Medical Leave Act); Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir 1999)

(holding that a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act was barred because it

arose from the same nucleus of operative facts at issue in a prior suit brought under

the qui tam provisions of the False Claim Act). 

Although plaintiff asserts a different reason for his termination in the present

action (retaliation for whistle-blowing), based upon a different federal statute, he is

contesting the same termination decision. Compare O’Connor, 200 F.3d at 1355with

Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.3d 1354, 1356-57 (11th Cir. 1998)

(finding that res judicata did not bar a second suit challenging an employer’s hiring

2

Case 5:10-cv-00551-CLS Document 9 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 3
decisions, when those decisions were different from the decision challenged in the

first action). Furthermore, although plaintiff asserts a different cause of action

against defendant in relation to his termination from Teledyne Brown Engineering,

it is still based on defendant’s disclosure of his alleged substance abuse problems.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that all claims

asserted in this action be, and the same hereby are, dismissed with prejudice. Costs

are taxed to plaintiff. The clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2010.

______________________________

United States District Judge

3

Case 5:10-cv-00551-CLS Document 9 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3