Drevaleva v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against Robert Wilkie, the United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The case arose from her termination from the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center after she left work without proper permission to undergo in-vitro fertilization in Russia.

The opinion states that Drevaleva had already filed related lawsuits involving the same termination. In the earlier district-court case, she asserted discrimination, tort, and constitutional claims and sought reinstatement. The district court dismissed the entire suit, later dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice, and entered judgment for Wilkie. An appeal from that judgment was still pending.

This case began when Drevaleva sought review of her constitutional claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction because it did not consider her to be a federal employee with a right to appeal there. The Federal Circuit then concluded that it lacked authority to review the constitutional claims because they arose from the employment-discrimination action in district court. It transferred the case to the Northern District of California. Drevaleva argued that the case should be transferred back to the Federal Circuit, while the defense moved to dismiss.

Court’s analysis

The court applied res judicata, a legal rule that bars later litigation of claims that were already litigated or could have been litigated based on the same operative facts. The court explained that res judicata requires: (1) the parties to be the same or legally connected, (2) the claims to be the same, and (3) a final judgment on the merits.

The court found all three requirements satisfied. First, it found that Drevaleva and the defendants were the same parties involved in the related actions. Second, it found that the claims in this case concerned the same termination from the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Third, it found that the district court had entered a final judgment on the merits on July 11, 2019.

The court rejected Drevaleva’s argument that res judicata could not apply while her appeal was pending. It relied on the rule that a final judgment continues to have res judicata effects while an appeal is pending. The court also rejected her argument that the earlier district court had not decided her constitutional claims on the merits, noting that the earlier order had dismissed those claims with prejudice because they arose from the same factual basis as her discrimination claims and because Title VI provided the exclusive remedy, as stated in this opinion.

Disposition

The court held that res judicata barred Drevaleva’s claims and granted the motion to dismiss. The order did not state that the dismissal in this case was with or without prejudice. It directed that judgment be entered separately. The opinion is signed by William Alsup, United States District Judge.