C i r cui tJ udg e R i char d D
. C udahy of the U ni t ed S t at es C our tof A p p e a ls f

orthe * S ev enth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i g nat i on. 0 9
- 1 4 1 6
- cv H a rri s v. B eth Is ra el M ed. C t r. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I N GS B Y S U MMA RY ORD E R D O N OT HAV E P RE C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ONT O A S U M M A RY O RD E R

F I L E D O NO R A F T E R JAN UA RY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AN D I S G O V E RN E D BY F ED ER A L RU LE OFA P P ELL A TE P R OCE D U RE 3 2.1 AN D THI S C OURT’ S LOC A L RU LE 32 .1.1. WHEN C I TI N G A S U MM A RY ORD ER I N A D OCU MENT F I LED WI TH THI S C OURT, APA R TY M U S T C I TE E I T HE R T HE FED E R

A L A P P E N D IXOR

ANE L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E (WI T H T HE N OT A T I ON “SU M M AR

Y ORDER”). A PARTY CI TIN G A SU M M AR Y O RD ER M US T SER

VE A C O P Y OF I T ON ANY P A R TY NOT R

EP RES EN TED B Y C OUN S EL. Ata s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed S t at es C our tof Appea l s f

orthe S econd Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ckM oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l S tr eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y or k , on the 22 day of February, tw o thous and t en. nd P R E S E N T : G U ID O C A L A B R E S I,

R E E N A R AG G I , RI CH A RD D. CU DA HY, *

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - D R . JE AN H AR R I S, D .O ., P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v . N o. 09- 1416- cv BET H I S RA EL M EDI CA L CENT ER, D ef endant

-Appel l ee .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- FO R APPE L L AN T : AM B R O S E W
. W O T O R S O N , B ro o kly n , N ew Y o rk. FOR A PP EL L EE: M AR V I N W EXL ER ( Dav i d T. M c Ta g g a r t , on the br i ef ) , K orns t ei n V ei s z W exl er& Pol l ar d, L L P , N e w Y o rk, N e w Y o rk.2

Ap p ea l from the U n it ed St ates D istri ct C o u rt for the Sou thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (C o ll ee n M cM ah o n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, A DJ UDGE D, A ND DE CR E E D th a tth e M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 9 j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED
. Pl ai nt i f f J ean H arr i s , D
. O
. , appea l s f r om the di s mi s s al of

herdi s abi l i ty di s cr i mi nat i on cl ai ms unde rthe Amer i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es Act ( “ AD A”) , 42 U
. S
. C
. § 12101 ets eq. , t he N ew Y or kS t at e H uman R i g ht s L aw , N
. Y
. E xec. L aw § 296, and the N ew Y or kC i ty H uman R i g ht s L aw , N
. Y
. C
. Admi n. C ode § 8- 107( 1) ( a)
. S peci f i cal l y, s he cont ends thatthe di s tr i ct
courterr ed i n concl udi ng that her di s abi l i ty di s cr i mi nat i on cl ai ms a r e barr ed by a pr i orN ew Y or kS t at e j udg mentunderthe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. W e r ev i ew an or derof di s mi s s al de
nov o, s ee H ol mes v . G rubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 ( 2d C i r . 2009) , as w e do appl i cat i on of t he doctr i ne of

r es j udi cat a, s ee O ’ C onnor v . Pi er s on, 568 F.3d 64, 69 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. I n doi ng so, w e assume the part i es’ fami l i ari ty w i th the f act s and the recor d o f pr i or proceeding s,
w hi c h we r e f

e r e nc e on l y a s ne c e s s a ry t o e xp l a i n o urde c i s i on t o a f f i r m. W h en “ d eterm in[i n g ] th e e f f e c t o f a stat e c o u rtjud g m en t, f ed era l cou rt s . . . are
r equi r ed t o appl y the pr ecl us i on l aw of the r ender i ng s t at e. ” C onopco, I nc. v . R ol l I nt ’ l , 231 F .3 d 8 2 , 8 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). “ ‘U n d er N ew Y o rk ’s tran sac ti o n al ap p roa ch to [res jud icata],
on c e a c laim is b ro u g htt o a f i na l c on c l us i on , a l l othe rc l a i ms a r i s i ng ou tof the s a me tra n sa c tio n o r se rie s o f tra n sa c tio n s a re b a rre d , e ven if b a se d u p o n d iffe re n t th e o rie s o r if
s eek i ng a di f

f er entr emedy. ’ ” G i annone v . Y or kT ape & L abel , I nc. , 548 F.3d 191, 194 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( al t er at i on i n or i g i nal ) ( quot i ng I n r e D er ek J o s ey, 9 N
. Y
. 3d 386, 389- 90, 849Al thoug h w e appl y N ew Y or k pr ecl us i on l aw , the rul e i s no di f f er entunderf

eder al 1 law . See C h ase M an h att an B an k , N .A. v . C elotex C o rp., 5 6 F .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 5 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); S amuel s v . N
. T el ecom, I nc. , 942 F.2d 834, 836 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ; N emai zer v . B ak er , 793 F.2d 5 8 , 6 0 -61 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). 3 N .Y .S.2d 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 (20 0 7 )); see also M ah ara j v . B an k am erica C o rp., 1 2 8 F .3 d 9 4 , 9 7 (2d C ir
. 1997) ( “ [ A] f

i nal j udg menton the mer i t s of an act i on pr ecl udes the part i es orthei rpr i v i es f r om r el i t i g at i ng i s s ues thatw ere o r c o u ld hav e bee n r ai s ed i n thatact i on. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on mark s omi t t ed) )
. Forpurpos es of appl yi ng thi s rul e, a s t i pul at i on t o di s cont i nue an acti on w i th prej ud i ce i s accorded the same res j ud i cat a eff ect as a j ud g men ton the m eri t s. S ee Benj ami n v . N ew Y or kC i ty D ep’ tof H eal th, 57 A. D
. 3d 403, 404, 870 N
. Y
. S
. 2d 290, 292 ( 1s tD ep’ t2008) ; Fi f ty C PW T enant s C orp. v. E p s te in , 16 A. D
. 3d 292, 293- 94, 792 N .Y .S.2d 5 8 , 6 0 (1st D ep ’t2 0 0 5 ). 1 H arr i s does notdi s put e thathers t at e act i on w as di s mi s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce by
s t i pul at i on. N or does s he cont end thatthe s t i pul at i on cont ai ned l ang uag e thatr es erv ed her

r i g h t t o p u r s u e r e l a t e d c l a i m s i n th e f u tu r e o r th a t o th e rwi s e l i m i t e d th e s c o p e o f t he
s t i pul at i on’ s pr ecl us i v e ef f ect . T he onl y ques t i on on appea l i s thus w hetherthe cl ai ms r ai s ed in H a rris’ s fe d e ra l c o m p lain t a rise fro m th e sa m e tra n sa c tio n a s th e c laim s ra ise d in h e r sta te
c o m p lain t. T h e d istric t co u rt a n sw e re d th is q u e stio n in th e a ffirm a tiv e , n o tin g tha t

T he f actual al l eg at i ons of [ H arr i s ’ s D ece mber 18, 2008] f eder al compl ai ntw er e i dent i cal – i n haec v erba – t o the k ey f actual a llega tio n s in th e c o m p la i n t . . . p re viou sly filed in th e State Sup rem e C o u rt , w ith o n e c ri ti ca l dif feren ce : in the fed era l cou rt compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i f

f av err ed thats he had been “ i nf or mal l y” di ag nos ed w i th [ At t ent i on D ef i ci tD i s or der ] , w her eas thatI n part i cul ar , H arr i s not es thatthe f eder al compl ai ntal l eg ed thatdur i ng an O ct ober 2 30, 2006 meet i ng w i th hos pi t al s t af f , s he di s cl os ed that s he had bee n i nf or mal l y di ag nos ed w i th At t ent i on D ef

i c it D i s or der , the condi t i on s he cl ai ms pr ompt ed def endant ’ s al l eg ed d iscri m ination
. 4

al l eg at i on w as omi t t ed i n the otherw i s e i dent i cal par ag r aphs of th e sta te c o u rt c o m p lain t. H arris v . B eth I srae l M ed . C tr ., N o . 0 8 C iv
. 1 1 0 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 W L 6 1 2 4 9 8 , at *1 (S .D .N .Y . M ar. 4, 2009)
. H av i ng thor oug hl y r ev i ew ed both the f eder al and s t at e court compl ai nt s , w e ag r ee. W h ile H a rris c o n ten d s th a t h e r f e d e ra l co m p lain t d iffe rs m a ter ially fro m h e r sta te compl ai nt“ by cont ai ni ng f act s nece s s ary t o s uppor t herdi s abi l i ty di s cr i mi nat i on caus es of

a c tio n , ” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 1 , th e fa c tu a l a lle ga tio n s a t th e h e a rt o f b o th c o m p la in ts in vo lve

2 def endant ’ s al l eg edl y i mpr operas s es s mentof H arr i s ’ s compe t ency a nd i t s s ubs equent deci s i ons t o deny H arr i s cr edi tf or her f i r s tyearof

r es i dency a nd t o r ef

r ai n f r om r enew i ng herempl oymentcontr act . T hey ther ef or e cons t i tut e a s i ng l e tr ans act i on. S ee S chw art zr ei ch

v . E
. P.C. C art i ng C o. , 246 A. D
. 2d 439, 441, 668 N
. Y
. S
. 2d 370, 372 ( 1s tD ep’ t1998) ( “ [ A] set o f facts w il l be d e e m ed a sin g le ‘tran sac ti o n ’ for res jud icata p u rpo ses if th e fa cts are
c lo se ly re late d in tim e , sp a c e , m o tiv a tio n , o r o rigi n , su c h th a t tre a tin g th e m a s a u n it w o u ld b e c o n v en ient for tri al an d w o u ld co n form to the p arti es’ e x p ec tat ion s.”). D es pi t e H arr i s ’ s cont ent i on t o the contr ary, i ti s i mmat er i al thatthe f eder al compl ai nt
re lie s u p o n a d if

fe re n t le ga l th e o ry o r s e e ks a n a lte rn a tive fo rm o f re lie f. Se e G ia n n o n e v. Y or kT ape & L abel , I nc. , 548 F.3d a t194 ( ci t i ng I n r e D er ek J os ey, 9 N
. Y
. 3d at389- 90, 849 N
. Y
. S
. 2d at499) ; s ee a ls o O ’B ri e n v . C i ty of S yr acus e, 54 N
. Y
. 2d 353, 357- 58, 4455

N .Y .S. 2 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 9 (1 9 8 1 ) (“W h e n a ltern a tiv e th e o rie s a re a vaila b le to re c o ver w h a t is
e ss e n tially th e sa m e re lief f o r h a rm a risin g o u t o f t h e s a m e o r re late d fa c ts s u c h a s w o u ld
c o n stitu te a sin gle ‘fa c tu a l gro u p in g,’ th e c irc u m sta n c e th a t th e th e o rie s in vo lve m a ter ially d if feren t el em en ts o f p roo f w il l n o t j u sti fy p rese n ti n g the c lai m s b y tw o d if feren t acti o n s.” ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) )
. I ndeed, thi s co u rt and the N ew Y or kS t at e court s hav e uphel d t he

a p p lica tio n o f re s ju d ica ta in p re c ise ly th e so rt o f fa c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s p re se n ted i n th is appea l
. S ee C i es zk ow s k a v . G r ay L i ne N
. Y
. , 295 F.3d 204, 205- 06 (2 d C ir
. 2002) ( concl udi ng thatpl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m t hats he w as di s char g ed on ac countof nat i onal or i g i n w as b a rr e d b y r e s ju d ic a ta w h e re p la in tif f p re vio u s ly c la im e d w ro n gfu l d is c h a rge , d is c h a rge
w ith o u t cau se, a n d d efa m ati o n o f p rofe ssion al rep u tat ion b ase d o n sam e fa ctua l pred icate);
see also San d h u v . M erc y M ed . C tr ., 5 4 A.D .3 d 9 2 8 , 9 2 9 , 8 6 4 N .Y .S.2d 1 2 4 , 1 2 5 (2d D ep ’t 2 0 0 8 ) (affi rm ing dism i s s a l o f bre ac h o f co n tr ac t cl aim o n res jud icata gr o u n d s w h ere pl ai nt i f f’ s pr ev i ous chal l eng e t o v al i di ty of s ame empl oyment contr acthad bee n r ej ect ed on
mer i t s ) ; Pachec o v . U ni t ed M ed. As s ocs . , P.C., 305 A. D
. 2d 711, 711- 13, 759 N
. Y
. S
. 2d 556, 558- 59 ( 3d D ep’ t2003) ( f i ndi ng pl ai nt i f

f’ s cl ai ms a l l eg i ng r ace - b a s e d di s par at e i mpact dis cri minat i on i n v i olat i on of N ew Y orkH um an R i g hts Law barr ed b y res j ud i cat a beca use pl ai nt i f f p r e v i o u s l y a s s e r t e d b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c tc l a i m i n v o l v i n g s a m e f a c tu a l a l l e g a t i ons against de fen d an t)
. Acc or di ng l y, beca us e the cl ai ms r ai s ed i n H arr i s ’ s f eder al compl ai ntar i s e f r om t he
sa m e tra n sa c tio n a s th e c laim s a ss e rte d in h e r sta te c o m p lain t, a n d b e c a u s e h e r sta teA lth o u gh , a s th e d istric t c o u rt n o ted , H a rris m ight h a ve a rgu e d th a t sh e w a s u n a b le 3 t o as s ert her di s cr i mi nat i on cl ai ms at the t i me her s t at e courtact i on w as pendi ng , w e dee m any s uch ar g umentw ai v ed on ac countof H arr i s ’ s f

ai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n herbr i ef
. S ee N or t on v . Sam ’s C lub , 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). I n an y even t, th e m ere fac t th at H arris’ s AD A cl ai ms w er e unexha us t ed atthe t i me th e s ta te act i on w as f i l ed does notal t ert he co n clus i o n t h at th e c lai m s co u ld h ave b ee n asse rt ed in the ea rl ier acti o n an d are there fore barr ed underthe doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. S ee W oods v . D unl op T i r e C orp. , 972 F.2d 36, 37- 4 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( c o n c lu d in g tha t p lain tiff’s T itl e V I I c laim w a s b a rre d b y re s ju d ica ta des pi t e pl ai nt i f

f’ s f ai l ur e t o r ece i v e r i g ht

- t o- s ue l ett er unt i l tw o year s af t er concl us i on of

pr i or act i on ar i s i ng f

r om sa me di s char g e, as pl ai nt i f f could hav e s t ayed e ar l i eract i on pendi ng out come of

T i t l e V I I admi ni s tr at i v e pr ocee di ng s or s oug ht r i g ht

- t o- s ue not i ce 180 da ys af t er fi li n g E E O C ch arge an d then am en d ed o ri g inal co m p lai n t t o inclu d e T it le V I I claim).
6 compl ai nt w as br oug ht t o f i nal j udg menton the mer i t s , the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l y di s mi s s ed the f eder al compl ai ntas barr ed by the doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. 3 W e h a ve c o n sid e re d H a rris’ s re m a in in g a rgu m e n ts a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e y lac k m e rit. F o r th e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 9 j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C AT H E R IN E O ’H AG AN W O LF E , C lerko f C o u rt