Where a motion has been filed to dismiss on res judicata grounds two counts of a complaint, that motion should be denied because the plaintiff’s current claims are distinct from those in a small claims suit she brought in Boston Municipal Court.

“Plaintiff Loren O.E. Nikolai Halsten (Halsten) brought this lawsuit against Prompt Praxis Laboratories, LLC (PPL) and its CEO, Lisa McChesney-Harris, alleging failure to pay wages earned and owed and unlawful discrimination and retaliation. The Complaint asserts four claims against both defendants: (1) employment discrimination in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Count I); (2) employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) (Count II); (3) failure to pay wages in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §148 (Count III); and (4) retaliation in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §148(A) (Count IV). …

“Defendants argue that Counts III and IV should be dismissed on res judicata grounds. A federal court looks to state law in deciding the res judicata (or claim preclusive) effect of a state court judgment. … The second element, the identities of the causes of action, is at issue.

“Halsten brought a small claims suit in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) to recover wages owed to her on the day of her discharge under the Wage Act. …

“The BMC determined that PPL failed to pay uncontested wages that were owed to Halsten on the day of her termination. … The small claims court was not presented with, nor could it...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiSmh0dHBzOi8vbWFzc2xhd3llcnN3ZWVrbHku...