IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41154

Summary Calendar

WAYNE A. STOKER,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TRIMAS CORPORATION, doing business as Norris Cylinder Company,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CV-583

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wayne Stoker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenges the

12(b)(6) dismissal of his employment-discrimination action against Trimas

Corporation. The district court dismissed the action, pursuant to res judicata, as

the claims were previously resolved in arbitration. Stoker contends the

arbitration does not bar his claims because: he did not knowingly waive his

right to await the results of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) investigation; the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction; Stoker did not have a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 29, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012
No. 11-41154

full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims; and the issues before the

arbitrator were not identical. These contentions lack merit. 

Over the course of his employment with Trimas, Stoker filed four

discrimination charges with the EEOC. One, in 2003, was dismissed on

summary judgment in federal court. The EEOC issued right-to-sue letters on two

filed in 2008, at which point Stoker (while represented by counsel) filed a

demand for arbitration. In 2009, Stoker was terminated for a safety violation.

He filed a fourth EEOC charge in response, alleging discrimination and

retaliation. In 2010, before the EEOC had issued a right-to-sue letter regarding

his latest claim, the final arbitration hearing began. There, with Stoker present

and represented by counsel, the parties agreed to arbitrate all of his claims,

explicitly including the 2009 claim. All issues were decided against Stoker. Six

months later the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for the 2009 charge and this

action followed. 

Our court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. E.g., Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir.

2012). The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law reviewed

de novo. E.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539, 546 (5th Cir.

2001). Res judicata has four elements: (1) the parties are identical; (2) the

judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the

same claim was involved in both actions. E.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway

Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2004). “If these conditions are satisfied, all

claims or defenses arising from a common nucleus of operative facts are merged

or extinguished.” Id. 

Here, the arbitration proceeding included the exact same parties. It also

resulted in a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.

U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 16 (2001) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (“a

valid and final award by arbitration has the same effects under the rules of res

2

Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2012
No. 11-41154

judicata . . . as a judgment of a court”); see also Nelson v. AMX Corp., 2005 WL

2495343 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2005), aff’d 227 F. App’x 363 (5th Cir. 2007).

That final judgment included the claims in this action. As such, res judicata

properly applied and Stoker failed to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2012