Beverly Foster v. Crawford & Company, Elise Mauldin

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1798
___________
BEVERLY FOSTER,
Appellant
v.
CRAWFORD & COMPANY, ELISE MAULDIN, and GEORGE SCHIFF
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
District Court Judge: The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden.
(D.C. Civil Action No. 98-CV-5454)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 8, 2002
Before: MANSMANN, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: February 13, 2002)
________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Beverly Foster filed this Title VII action against her former employer
Crawford & Company and several Crawford & Company employees. After the
individual defendants were dismissed, Crawford & Company moved for summary
judgment. Crawford & Company argued that Foster's Title VII claim should be barred
under the doctrine of claim preclusion because Foster raised a Title VII claim against
Crawford & Company in a prior suit which was dismissed. The District Court granted
Crawford & Company's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Foster's Title
VII action was barred by claim preclusion, and dismissed Foster's complaint in its
entirety.
We have carefully considered Foster's arguments in this appeal. We hold that they
lack merit. For the reasons substantially stated in Judge Hayden's thorough and well-
reasoned opinion, we affirm the Judgment of the District Court.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --