So this case does not resemble Trueblood's chief authority on appeal- Breaker v. Bemidji State University, 899 N.W.2d 515 (Minn.Ct.App. 2017). There, a state employee was called into active military service and his employer did not make his original position available upon his return

Res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, seeks to avoid wasteful litigation so that a party may not be sued twice for the same cause of action. Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 518-19 (Minn. App. 2017). "Whether res judicata is available in a particular case is a question reviewed de novo."Sanvik v. Sanvik, 850 N.W.2d 732, 737 (Minn. App. 2014).

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003). We review legal questions, such as immunity and statutory interpretation, de novo. Larson v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 855 N.W.2d 293, 301 (Minn. 2014) (statutory interpretation); Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 520 (Minn. App. 2017) (immunity). I. The district court did not err by dismissing Fageroos's MHRA claim.

The doctrine of res judicata seeks to avoid wasteful litigation so "that a party may not be twice vexed for the same cause." Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 518-19 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted). Res judicata bars a subsequent claim if: (1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.

State v. Joseph , 636 N.W.2d 322, 328 (Minn. 2001) (quoting Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc. , 917 F.2d 1507, 1521 (10th Cir. 1990) ); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Revenue , 619 N.W.2d 194, 199-200 (Minn. 2000) (jurisdiction); Breaker v. Bemidji State University , 899 N.W.2d 515, 524-25 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) (sovereign immunity). A plaintiff’s pro se status, however, is not an analogous limitation and does not deprive the plaintiff of a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn. 1978). Often, a court considers whether the estopped party has a full and fair opportunity based on whether there were procedural limitations, incentives to fully litigate, or limitations based on the relationship of the parties. Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn.Ct.App. 2017) (citing State v. Joseph, 636 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Minn. 2001)).

In acknowledgement of the "full and fair opportunity" requirement, many jurisdictions recognize a "formal barriers" exception to claim preclusion. See, e.g., Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017); Davis v. City of Memphis, 2017 WL 634780, *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2017); Peterson v. Newton, 307 P.3d 1020, 1023 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013); Ohio Ky. Oil Corp. v. Nolfi, 5 N.E.3d 683, 691 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013); Levenson v. FeuerCarris v. John R. Thomas & Assocs., P.C., 896 P.2d 522, 530 (Okla. 1995).

State v. Joseph, 636 N.W.2d 322, 328 (Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted); see also Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 524 (Minn.App. 2017) (holding that the plaintiff was previously prevented from litigating a matter by operation of sovereign immunity); In re Crablex, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 247, 254 (Minn.App. 2009) (holding the litigants were previously prevented from litigating a claim by a settlement agreement), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2009).

The fourth and final res judicata factor "focuses on whether there were significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding, whether the party had the incentive to litigate fully the issue, or whether effective litigation was limited by the nature or relationship of the parties." Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn. App. 2017) (quoting State v. Joseph, 636 N.W.2d 322, 328 (Minn. 2001)).

A significant procedural limitation is one that prevents a party "in the first action from bringing the claim raised in the second action." Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn. App. 2017). Breaker sued the university for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on its failure to provide him with the same employment opportunity he had before he was called up for active military service.