Zimmerman v. Coll. of Charleston

ANASTASIA ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-00505-DCN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Dated: August 26, 2013

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant contends that all of the claims asserted in plaintiff's federal court complaint could have been raised in her pending state court case but were not, and are barred by res judicata. The magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the court deny defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. After conducting a de novo review of the pleadings, briefs, and state court record, the court finds that res judicata applies and grants defendant's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Dr. Anastasia Zimmerman is a tenured Assistant Professor at the College of Charleston (the College). On June 13, 2011, she filed an action in state court against the College and Lou Burnett, in his individual capacity. Zimmerman v. Coll. of Charleston, No. 2011-CP-10-4160. In her state court complaint, Zimmerman alleged that Burnett, Director of the Grice Marine Laboratory and Zimmerman's supervisor at the College, acted with hostility towards women and specifically bullied, intimidated, and attempted to harm Zimmerman. State Ct. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. Zimmerman brought a claim against the College for grossly negligent supervision and against Burnett for defamation.

On April 4, 2012, the College moved for summary judgment in state court, arguing that Zimmerman's negligent supervision claim was barred by the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The state court entered summary judgment in favor of the College on May 2, 2012, and issued a written order granting summary judgment on May 30, 2012. In its written order, the court first held that Zimmerman's negligent supervision claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act because the claim arose out of her employment with the College. Alternatively, the court held that even if Burnett were an "alter-ego" of the College and the College could be held liable for his intentional acts, Zimmerman's negligent supervision claim was barred by the Tort Claims Act. Zimmerman did not file an appeal.

In July 2011, Zimmerman had filed Charges of Discrimination with the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission and U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. ECF No. 24-4 at 2. On February 7, 2012, the Human Affairs Commission issued a Notice of Right to Sue. ECF No. 27-7 at 2. The EEOC forwarded Zimmermnan's request to the U.S. Department of Justice, which issued a Notice of Right to Sue on May 2, 2012. ECF No. 24-6 at 2; ECF No. 27-9 at 3.

On February 23, 2012, over two months before the state court granted summary judgment to the College, Zimmerman filed the present action against the College in federal court, bringing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, for hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. In her federal complaint, Zimmerman names only the College as a defendant. She alleges the College "has repeatedly over the course of years permitted one of its employees and Plaintiff'ssupervisor and co-worker, Lou Burnett, to be verbally abusive to women and to act in a discriminatory manner towards women." Fed. Ct. Compl. ¶ 7. Zimmerman claims Burnett has screamed at her, attempted to intimidate her, required her to use a dangerous storage room as a lab, and talked down to her at professional meetings. See id. ¶ 12. According to Zimmerman, the College created a hostile work environment by failing to exercise reasonable care in preventing or correcting Burnett's conduct; discriminated against her by not giving her a lab and requiring her to share space with other professors; and retaliated against her by, inter alia, allowing Burnett to file internal grievances against her.

On September 5, 2012, the College filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The College contends that the doctrine of res judicata bars Zimmerman from bringing her Title VII claims in federal court because the claims could have been brought in state court. Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. on Pleadings 2-3. This matter was referred to the magistrate judge, who issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) on November 16, 2012, recommending that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied because Zimmerman's Title VII claims are not barred by res judicata. The magistrate judge found that the state court's application of the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act was a jurisdictional determination that does not carry a preclusive effect. Defendant filed timely objections to the R&R on December 14, 2012.

II. STANDARDS

The court is charged with conducting a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific, written objections are made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The recommendation of the magistrate judge carries no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination rests with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976).

A party may assert the affirmative defense of res judicata on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Forty One News, Inc. v. Cnty. of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2007). In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, the court must consider the pleadings and may consider matter outside the pleadings by taking judicial notice of facts from a prior judicial proceeding. See Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000); Briggs v. Newberry Cnty. Sch. Dist., 838 F. Supp. 232, 234 (D.S.C. 1992).

Rule 12(c) motions are decided under the same standard as motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405-06 (4th Cir. 2002). To survive the motion, the complaint must contain sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). The court must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the state court's grant of summary judgment does not preclude Zimmerman's federal claims.

"'The doctrine of res adjudicata (or res judicata) in the strict sense of that time-honored Latin phrase had its origin in the principle that it is in the public interest that there should be an end of litigation and that no one should be twice sued for the same cause of action.'" S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Basnight, 551 S.E.2d 274, 278 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Greenville v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 35 S.E.2d 47, 56 (S.C. 1945)). Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars litigation of claims that were litigated or could have been litigated in an earlier suit. Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130 (1983); Hilton Head Ctr. of S.C., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of S.C., 362 S.E.2d 176, 177 (S.C. 1987).

To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, federal courts look to state law. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95-96 (1980); Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 161-62 (4th Cir. 2008). In South Carolina, res judicata requires proof of three elements: (1) "a final, valid judgment was entered on the merits of the first suit"; (2) "the parties to both suits are the same"; and (3) "the subsequent action involves matters properly included in the first action." Judy v. Judy, 677 S.E.2d 213, 217 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

A. Whether There Was a Final Judgment Entered on the Merits

In the state court case, the Honorable Stephanie P. McDonald, applying South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), "granted summary judgment as to all the causes of action and claims asserted by Zimmerman against the College." ECF No. 36 Ex. B at 4. The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that "summary judgment is anadjudication on the merits of the case." Baird v. Charleston Cnty., 511 S.E.2d 69, 74 (S.C. 1999). A plain reading of the state court's order granting summary judgment engenders a finding that the state court resolved Zimmerman's negligent supervision claim on the merits.

The magistrate judge recommends otherwise. Relying on South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b),¹ the magistrate judge found that an application of the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act is "necessarily a jurisdictional" rather than a merits determination. R&R 4; see Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 562 (5th Cir. 1983) ("[D]ismissals for want of jurisdiction are paradigms of non-merits adjudication."). Because, according to the magistrate judge, the state court did not decideZimmerman's negligent supervision claim on the merits, the magistrate judge recommends that Judge McDonald's summary judgment order cannot carry a preclusive effect.

The exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act provides that the rights and remedies granted to an employee by the Act "shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee . . . as against his employer." S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-540. Interpreting this provision, the South Carolina Supreme Court has expressly held that "the exclusivity provision does not involve subject matter jurisdiction." Sabb v. S.C. State Univ., 567 S.E.2d 231, 234 (S.C. 2002); see also Cooke v. Palmetto Health Alliance, 624...