The issue before us is whether the federal court decision that the complaint in the Title VII case was not timely filed is res judicata as to the instant case. The doctrine of res judicata provides that an existing final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive with respect to causes of actions and issues litigated therein as to the parties in subsequent actions. It bars a complainant from bringing a claim when a court of competent jurisdiction has already adjudicated the same claim or cause of action based upon the merits. Union Local No. Once a controversy has been adjudicated, it should remain closed, and not subject to additional litigation.
Public policy requires the stability of judgments.
Res judicata provides closure to disagreements and prevents endless litigation. A branch of the res judicata doctrine is collateral estoppel. The doctrine of collateral estoppel provides that a judgment between two parties in an action prevents the same parties from relitigating any issue in subsequent litigation that had already been decided in the earlier case. Even if an issue decided in a previous case is raised again in a completely different cause of action, collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of that issue. Likewise, a party cannot escape the estoppel of a previously litigated issue by advancing new arguments with respect to the issue.