Drevaleva v. McDonough

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva alleged that she was fired from her position as an EKG technician at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Mexico after leaving for Russia to receive fertility treatment. She alleged that managers did not properly approve her requested leave, placed her on “AWOL” status, and terminated her employment for attendance issues. She also alleged discrimination and unequal treatment based on sex, disability, and age.

The complaint asserted claims under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. It also asserted breach-of-union-agreement, constitutional, and California and New Mexico state-law claims.

The court described several earlier lawsuits arising from Drevaleva’s employment disputes with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In an earlier round of this case, a New Mexico federal court dismissed her claims with prejudice as a sanction for failing to follow court orders, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The current complaint alleged that the earlier dismissal was void and that Drevaleva could refile her claims.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion, and by sovereign immunity. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim supported by enough facts to make the claim plausible.

Claim preclusion prevents a party from bringing a later case based on claims that were or could have been raised in an earlier case. The court stated that it applies when there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits, and the same parties or parties legally connected to them.

Analysis

The court found all three requirements satisfied. First, the current case and the earlier cases arose from the same group of facts: Drevaleva’s probationary employment, requested leave, and termination at the Veterans Affairs facility in New Mexico. The court stated that the complaint’s many causes of action did not involve distinct or unrelated facts, but repeated the same grievance raised in the earlier cases.

Second, the court found that the cases involved the same parties. The United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs had been named repeatedly in Drevaleva’s prior cases.

Third, the court held that the earlier dismissal operated as a final judgment on the merits under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court explained that the earlier dismissal was not for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party, and that it had been entered with prejudice. The court rejected Drevaleva’s assertion that the New Mexico court’s order was void and noted that the order had been affirmed by the Tenth Circuit.

Because the earlier dismissal precluded claims arising from the denial of leave and Drevaleva’s termination, the court did not reach the defendants’ alternative sovereign-immunity arguments.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The order also terminated all pending motions as moot.