Opinion
23-1525
09-15-2023
Bryant L. Graham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Healthplex Associates, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted September 11, 2023 [*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:21-cv-03079-JPH-MKK James Patrick Hanlon, Judge.
Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge. THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
In 2019 Healthplex fired Bryant Graham. He sued Healthplex and one of his supervisors (Adnan Hyder) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed that suit with prejudice. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86193 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2021). Graham abandoned his appeal, which we dismissed on his motion. No. 21-1770 (7th Cir. May 14, 2021).
Instead of pursuing that appeal, Graham sued Healthplex and Hyder again, adding some state-law claims. He also added a new defendant: Renee Clark McDonald, another of his supervisors. The district court dismissed the new Title VII claim as barred by claim preclusion (res judicata). Healthplex and Hyder had been parties to the first case, and Clark McDonald was in privity with them, the judge concluded. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34672 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2023). The judge then relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims.
Graham's appeal does not contest the ground on which he lost in the district court. Instead he insists that he should prevail on the merits. But that contention does not entitle him to file multiple suits about the same events. One complete round of litigation on a given claim is all any litigant receives. See Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 1589, 1594-95 (2020). That requires us to affirm the judgment with respect to Healthplex and Hyder.
The situation with respect to Clark McDonald is more complex. It is true that she was in the same general position as Hyder, but an employer (such as Healthplex) and an employee (such as Clark McDonald) often have different interests in court-and Clark McDonald was not "in privity" with Hyder in the sense that their legal entitlements necessarily are the same. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). It seems to us better to say that Graham cannot recover against Clark McDonald under Title VII because that statute authorizes suits against employers but not against fellow employees. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). (Title VII authorizes suits against some employment agencies and labor unions, but supervisors are not in either category.) Whether Graham's loss in a Title VII suit against Hyder precludes all litigation against Clark McDonald in state court under state law is not a subject that we need address.
AFFIRMED.
[*] After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).