Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03521/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3521

___________

Victor Ziegler, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of *

Interior, Head Government Official * [UNPUBLISHED]

of the Agency, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 7, 2007

Filed: January 29, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Ziegler, Sr., appeals following the district court’s adverse judgment in

his action brought under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment

Rights Act (USERRA), the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), and the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). We affirm in part and reverse in

part. 

We conclude dismissal was proper as to Ziegler’s USERRA and VEOA claims,

because the district court lacked jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 3330a-3330b

Appellate Case: 06-3521 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396314
-2-

(describing required administrative procedure for VEOA claims); 38 U.S.C. § 4324

(USERRA claims must be presented to Merit Systems Protection Board, with right to

appeal to Federal Circuit); Stout v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 389 F.3d 1233, 1237 (Fed.

Cir. 2004) (Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of

Merit Systems Protection Board).

As to the ADEA claims, the district court invited the parties to address the

applicability of res judicata, because Ziegler had filed an earlier lawsuit alleging age

discrimination by defendant (Ziegler I), which was resolved adversely to Ziegler. See

Ziegler v. Norton, 166 Fed. Appx. 879, 880-81 (8th Cir. 2006) (unpublished per

curiam). We disagree with Ziegler that the court acted improperly in inviting the

parties to address res judicata. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 231

(1995). We conclude, however, that res judicata did not preclude Ziegler’s claim in

the instant lawsuit that defendant violated the ADEA by constructively discharging

him in April 1999 and failing to rehire him in June 1999. See Carter v. Kansas City

S. Ry. Co., 456 F.3d 841, 848 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing de novo decision to apply

res judicata doctrine). These claims were not part of Ziegler I, which alleged age

discrimination with regard to defendant’s October 1998 decision not to select Ziegler

for a criminal investigator position. See Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 F.3d 1005,

1014 (8th Cir. 2002) (res judicata bars relitigating claim where court of competent

jurisdiction rendered prior judgment, prior judgment was final judgment on merits,

and both cases involved same cause of action and same parties); see also Daley v.

Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 896 (8th Cir. 2005) (under same-cause-of-action

element of res judicata, court should consider whether claims arose out of same

nucleus of operative facts; final analysis seems to be whether wrong for which redress

is sought is same in both actions). 

We note, however, that the district court record raises the question whether the

instant lawsuit was timely filed: it is undisputed that the decision denying the

underlying consolidated Equal Employment Opportunity complaint was issued in

Appellate Case: 06-3521 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396314
-3-

September 2003, and that the instant lawsuit was not filed until June 2004. See 29

C.F.R. § 1614.407(c) (federal sector complainant should file civil action in appropriate

district court within 90 days of receipt of Commissioner’s final decision on appeal).

Further development of the record is necessary to determine timeliness. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Ziegler’s USERRA and

VEOA claims, we reverse as to the ADEA claims, and we remand for further

development of the record on the issue of timeliness. We deny Ziegler’s motion to

supplement the record.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3521 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2008 Entry ID: 3396314