Case Name: Mary W. MORELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, formerly known as Department of Health, Division of Administrative Services, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-26
Citations: 6 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 99-1324
Parties: Mary W. MORELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, formerly known as Department of Health, Division of Administrative Services, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Mary W. MORELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, formerly known as Department of Health, Division of Administrative Services, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-1324.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 26, 2001.
Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff brought an administrative action in Colorado alleging gender and age discrimination. After sundry proceedings, her claims were denied. She then appealed to the Colorado state courts. The administrative decision was affirmed. She brought an action in federal district court asserting the same claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. That action was dismissed on grounds of collateral estoppel and res judicata.
We conclude that this case is legally indistinguishable from Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982), and Bolling v. City & County of Denver, 790 F.2d 67 (10th Cir.1986).
Plaintiff makes much of the failure of the State of Colorado to provide her with free transcripts of the administrative proceedings because of her indigency and of the absence of a jury trial in the state administrative proceedings. Neither is relevant to whether she had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims. Of course, Plaintiff could have filed this federal action in the first place, rather than appeal the administrative decision to the Colorado courts. Having elected that appeal, however, she is bound by its results as we are also.
For the reasons set out here, and as more fully recited in the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and adopted by the trial court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.