Beth Ellen Schulz v. Hope Network Rehabilitation Services

The Hon. Curtis L. Collier, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
*
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0828n.06
Filed: December 6, 2007
No. 07-1292
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BETH ELLEN SCHULZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOPE NETWORK REHABILITATION
SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: DAUGHTREY and COLE, Circuit Judges; COLLIER, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. In this appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the
defendant, Hope Network Rehabilitation Services, plaintiff Beth Ellen Schulz seeks to
overturn the district court’s ruling that res judicata bars her federal claims because those
claims could have been resolved in a state court action Schulz filed in June 2005, after the
defendant terminated her seven-week employment at one of its facilities. The state action,
in which the plaintiff alleged breach of contract and violation of the Michigan
Whistleblower’s Protection Act, M.C.L. 15.361, was settled for monetary damages totaling
$45,000 and resulted in a final judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in June 2006.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-1292
Schulz v. Hope Network Rehabilitation Services
- 2 -
Meanwhile, in March 2006 Schulz filed this suit in federal court, alleging violations
of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and the Equal Pay Act, 29
U.S.C. § 206(d). In response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on
claim preclusion, the plaintiff argued that the timing of receipt of her Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter in December 2005 prevented her from including
her federal claims in the state court action. The district court, correctly applying Michigan
state law to determine the question of claim preclusion, held that the federal claims arose
from the same transaction as the state claims, that the plaintiff’s state action could have
been amended to include the federal claims, and that the timing of the right-to-sue letter
did not, in fact, prevent the joinder of all the claims in the state action.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendant
have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this
court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion
dated January 31, 2007.

-- 2 of 2 --