Wayne Stoker v. TriMas Corporation, No. 11-41154 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-41154 Summary Calendar June 29, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WAYNE A. STOKER, Plaintiff - Appellee v. TRIMAS CORPORATION, doing business as Norris Cylinder Company, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CV-583 Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wayne Stoker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenges the 12(b)(6) dismissal of his employment-discrimination action against Trimas Corporation. The district court dismissed the action, pursuant to res judicata, as the claims were previously resolved in arbitration. Stoker contends the arbitration does not bar his claims because: he did not knowingly waive his right to await the results of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation; the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction; Stoker did not have a * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 No. 11-41154 full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims; and the issues before the arbitrator were not identical. These contentions lack merit. Over the course of his employment with Trimas, Stoker filed four discrimination charges with the EEOC. One, in 2003, was dismissed on summary judgment in federal court. The EEOC issued right-to-sue letters on two filed in 2008, at which point Stoker (while represented by counsel) filed a demand for arbitration. In 2009, Stoker was terminated for a safety violation. He filed a fourth EEOC charge in response, alleging discrimination and retaliation. In 2010, before the EEOC had issued a right-to-sue letter regarding his latest claim, the final arbitration hearing began. There, with Stoker present and represented by counsel, the parties agreed to arbitrate all of his claims, explicitly including the 2009 claim. All issues were decided against Stoker. Six months later the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for the 2009 charge and this action followed. Our court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. E.g., Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2012). The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law reviewed de novo. E.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539, 546 (5th Cir. 2001). Res judicata has four elements: (1) the parties are identical; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim was involved in both actions. E.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2004). If these conditions are satisfied, all claims or defenses arising from a common nucleus of operative facts are merged or extinguished. Id. Here, the arbitration proceeding included the exact same parties. It also resulted in a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 16 (2001) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) ( a valid and final award by arbitration has the same effects under the rules of res 2 Case: 11-41154 Document: 00511905211 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 No. 11-41154 judicata . . . as a judgment of a court ); see also Nelson v. AMX Corp., 2005 WL 2495343 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2005), aff d 227 F. App x 363 (5th Cir. 2007). That final judgment included the claims in this action. As such, res judicata properly applied and Stoker failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
