NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 17, 2010*

Decided March 3, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3062

FRANKLIN C. EDMONDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 139,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 08-cv-644-bbc

Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

Order

Franklin Edmonds has filed at least three race-discrimination suits against his union, 

which he contends is not assigning African-Americans to construction projects on the 

same basis as it assigns white workers. In the first suit, filed in the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin in 1997, Edmonds was one of several class representatives. A consent decree 

was entered in 2002; a court-appointed monitor kept tabs on the union’s compliance. When Edmonds contended that the union had violated its obligations—and should 

have made the out-of-work list available to him so that he as well as the monitor could 

supervise compliance—the Eastern District rejected Edmonds’s contentions. The monitor concluded, and the district judge found, that the union had performed its obligations 

and is not required to give Edmonds copies of the out-of-work lists. After the decree 

had been in force for five years, the district court found on March 30, 2007, that the union was not engaged in discrimination and ended its obligations under the decree.

Edmonds then sued in the Western District of Wisconsin. That suit, No. 08-cv-567-

bbc, was dismissed on the ground of claim preclusion (res judicata). 620 F. Supp. 2d 966 

(W.D. Wis. 2009). Edmonds did not appeal—but neither did he accept defeat. He urged 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 09-3062 Page 2

this third suit, which like the second has been dismissed as precluded to the extent that 

it rests on federal law. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61146 (W.D. Wis. July 17, 2009). The district 

court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction of claims under state law. 28 U.S.C. 

§1367(c)(3). This time Edmonds appealed.

The district judge rightly concluded that the suit is barred twice over—not only by 

the action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin but also by the first action in the Western 

District. The claims and parties are the same; both of the other suits went to final judgment; all elements of claim preclusion have been established. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 

S. Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008). What is more, Title VII has its own rule of preclusion, which 

prevents further litigation about matters covered by consent decrees. 42 U.S.C. §2000e–

2(n). The district court’s careful opinion does not require repetition or elaboration here.

But we do have one thing to add. Edmonds has been litigating against the union for 

13 years. His argument that the union must make the out-of-work lists available to him 

has been rejected three times. The doctrine of claim preclusion implements a fundamental norm that one round of litigation suffices. Edmonds must understand that any further suits based on the same allegations and contentions will subject him to sanctions, 

potentially including not only fines but also an order directing clerks of court to return 

his papers unfiled. See Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995); Support Systems 

International v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). If the union embarks on a discriminatory course that differs from the practices alleged in these three suits, then Edmonds is 

free to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and follow up with litigation. But if 

the union simply continues to behave as it has done in the past, no more litigation is 

appropriate. The doctrines of issue and claim preclusion may be hard for a non-lawyer 

to understand; Edmonds should consult with legal counsel before filing any further 

suits. In the end, however, Edmonds must bear personal responsibility for his choices, 

and further suits making the same allegations will simply lead to sanctions.

AFFIRMED