### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH 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 a n d 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 arbitrati o n. Stoker contends the arbitration d o e s 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June29 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012No. 11-41154

full and fair opportunity to litigat e his claims; and the issues before the arbitrator were not identical. These contentions lack merit. Over the cou r s e o f his employment with Trimas, Stoker filed four discrimination charges with the EEOC. One , in 2003, was dismissed on
s u m m ary j udgment in federal court. The EEOC issued right-to-sue l etter s o n two filed in 2008, at which point Stoker (while represented by counsel) filed a demand for arbitration. In 2009, Stoker was terminated for a s af e ty 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 arbitr at e 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) th e p arti e s 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 Co r p . , 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: 06/29/2012No. 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 j u d g m ent included the claims in this action. As such, res judicata properly applied and Stoker f ail e d t o s tate a claim upon which relief could be granted. AFFIRMED.

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