Opinion ID: 155015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 In 1977, King, an African-American male, began working for Unocal as a production technician in Carter County, Oklahoma. In May 1992, Unocal announced that it was planning to implement a reduction in force. In July 1992, King was injured on a company golf outing and notified Unocal of his injury pursuant to the Oklahoma Worker's Compensation Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 85, § 24.2. On September 11, 1992, Unocal informed King that his employment was terminated pursuant to the reduction in force. On September 25, 1992, Unocal's human resources department informed King that because of his termination, he was eligible to participate in Unocal's Termination Allowance Plan (Plan). Under the Plan, King was entitled to receive two weeks of severance benefits for every two years of employment. To participate in the Plan, however, Unocal required King to file a Termination Allowance Claim Form (Claim Form), which included a release of any claims against Unocal arising out of King's termination. 4 On October 2, 1992, King submitted the Claim Form, which contained the release. King checked a box on the Claim Form indicating that his termination was due to his [i]nability to perform job assignment ... because of a disability resulting from illness or injury. App't.App. at 70. On October 14, 1992, Unocal's human resources department informed King that Unocal was unable to process his claim because he had erroneously checked the box indicating that his termination was due to a disability instead of, as Unocal asserted, a reduction in force. King was given another Claim Form for completion. 5 On October 22, 1992, King's attorney sent Unocal a letter stating that King intended to file a discrimination claim against the company arising from his termination, that King does not intend to release or relinquish any of his rights, and that the previously executed release was of no force and effect . App't.App. at 73. The letter also threatened litigation if Unocal failed to pay King severance benefits under the Plan. Id. On December 10, 1992, Unocal's legal department replied to the letter, enclosing another Claim Form and notifying King's attorney that participation in the Plan was conditioned upon the execution of a release by King. Unocal requested that King's attorney clarify whether King intended to withdraw his release and go forward with his discrimination suit, in which case he would not be entitled to receive severance benefits under the Plan. Unocal received no response. 6 One year after bringing his discrimination and retaliation claims against Unocal, King commenced the present suit against Unocal to recover severance benefits. Unocal moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) King's failure to raise his ERISA claim in the first lawsuit precludes this second suit under the doctrine of res judicata and (2) King's failure to execute a release of his claims against Unocal, as required by the Plan as a condition for receiving benefits, precludes his recovery of benefits. Because we reverse on the basis of res judicata, we do need to reach Unocal's contention that King is not entitled to benefits under the Plan because he failed to execute a release.