Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03003/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kansas Board of Regents
Appellee
Kansas State University
Appellee
Lois Morales
Appellant
Jon Wefald
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LOIS MORALES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

1"1AY 301990, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3003 

(D. Kansas) 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY; KANSAS BOARD 

OF REGENTS; JON WEFALD, President of 

Kansas State University, 

(D.C. No. 88-4208-R) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal by an employee whose Title VII action 

claiming retaliation, discrimination, and harassment was decided 

in favor of the employer. 

The parties agree the facts are undisputed. Employee was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3003 Document: 010110036119 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 1 
> 

discharged and appealed her dismissal to the Kansas Civil Service 

Board. This board conducted a full and complete evidentiary 

hearing, concluding that employee's dismissal was due to 

inefficiency of performance and was not the result of 

discrimination or retaliation. Employee asked for a rehearing, 

which was denied, and then filed a petition for review in the 

Kansas State District Court, which sustained the findings and 

conclusions of the Kansas Civil Service Board. This decision was 

appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which upheld the district 

court decision. Employee then appealed this decision to the 

Kansas Supreme Court where it has been argued and is awaiting a 

decision. 

Employee then commenced this suit in United States District 

Court, which granted employer's motion for summary judgment 

holding that employee was precluded from bringing this action 

based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 

Employee now asserts the United States District Court erred 

because neither the decision of the Kansas Civil Service Board nor 

the decision of the Kansas State District Court is entitled to 

preclusive effect. Employee argues that procedures conducted 

under state civil service laws, even if judicially reviewed, are 

not adequate under Title VII. 

We view Scroggins v. State of Kansas, 802 F.2d 1289 (10th 

Cir. 1986), as being dispositive. This court there held that this 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3003 Document: 010110036119 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 2 
circuit will not hesitate to apply 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (state 

judicial proceedings are entitled to full faith and credit in 

every court within the United States} to actions arising under 

Title VII. In order to invoke this rule, we held in Scroggins, 

there must exist a clear indication that either the plaintiff had 

a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and that the 

court hearing the claim had the authority to adjudicate the 

merits. 

In our case, it is clear that the state court had the 

authority to adjudicate the merits, therefore the precise question 

before this court, based upon Scroggins, is whether or not the 

record contains a clear indication that employee had a full and 

fair opportunity to litigate her claim. 

The United States District Court, in its Memorandum and Order 

of November 28, 1989, thoroughly reviewed the applicable Kansas 

law and the transcript of the hearing before the Kansas Civil 

Service Board. The United States District Court stated, in part, 

as follows: 

Here, the issue of retaliation was fully litigated 

The hearing before the board lasted two days. 

Plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the 

proceedings. Seventeen witnesses testified and sixty 

exhibits were entered into evidence ••.. Counsel for 

plaintiff made it quite clear that plaintiff contended 

that she had been dismissed from her position in 

retaliation for filing a previous civil rights 

complaint •••. [T]he Board found that plaintiff had been 

dismissed because she had received two consecutive 

unsatisfactory performance evaluations.... The Board 

further specifically found that plaintiff's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3003 Document: 010110036119 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 3 
"unsatisfactory evaluations were [not] the result of 

retaliation .... " Plaintiff then filed a petition for 

review in the District Court .... In this petition, 

plaintiff requested the court to make a finding that she 

received the unsatisfactory evaluations in retaliation 

The state district court affirmed the findings of 

the Board 

Employee's principal argument concerning the inadequacy of 

the Kansas Civil Service Board was that the analysis of the 

evidence "did not comport with the standard manner of analysis in 

such cases" in that ''[t]here is no indication in the board's 

order that the shifting burden of proof utilized in Kansas and 

federal courts to adjudicate employment discrimination cases was 

utilized by the board in Plaintiff's civil service hearing." 

[Appellant's Brief at 15.] Employee's argument is flawed. A 

federal court does not sit to correct errors in state court. We 

may entertain employee's case only if she was denied a full and 

fair opportunity to litigate her claim. 

Employee argues that Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 

U.S. 461 (1982), mandates that we not afford preclusive effect to 

a state civil service board's determination. Employee overlooks 

the fact that the Court in Kremer and the United States District 

Court here both gave preclusive effect not to the agency's 

decision but rather to the state court's decision reviewing the 

agency's decisions. The Kremer analysis extends to a state court 

decision reviewing an administrative decision. Rider v. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 982 (3d Cir.), cert. 

denied, 109 S. Ct. 556 (1988) (arbitration decision); Carlisle v. 

Phenix City Bd. of Educ., 849 F.2d 1376 (11th Cir. 1988) (a 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3003 Document: 010110036119 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 4 
teacher tenure proceeding); Burney v. Polk Community College, 728 

F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1984) (counselor dismissal proceeding). 

Employee has no right to a de novo trial in federal court 

absent a showing that she was denied a full and fair opportunity 

to litigate her claim or that the court hearing the claim lacked 

the authority to adjudicate the claim on the merits. 

failed to make the requisite showing. 

Employee 

Employee argues that no preclusive effect should be given to 

the state court judgment until all appeals are exhausted. We 

disagree. If the Kansas Supreme Court reverses, employee may 

receive the relief she requests and if the Kansas Supreme Court 

affirms, employee has still received a full and fair opportunity 

to litigate her claim. Therefore there exists no reason for the 

district court to defer its decision. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3003 Document: 010110036119 Date Filed: 05/30/1990 Page: 5