## Facts

- Cedric Davis and Rufus Johnson, African-American police officers employed by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), alleged race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
- In an earlier suit (“Davis I”), they asserted Title VII and § 1983 claims based on employment-related events from November 1998 to February 2001.
- The district court dismissed Davis I with prejudice in February 2002.
- In a later suit (“Davis II”), they sued DART (and later added DART’s police chief, Juan Rodriguez), asserting Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983 claims based on alleged conduct from March 2001 to April 2002.
- The central new factual focus in Davis II was the December 2001–April 2002 lieutenant promotion process, including allegations that:
  - they were excluded from the process and denied access to materials and the exam;
  - DART manipulated or inconsistently applied eligibility criteria to favor white candidates; and
  - exclusion and other treatment were in retaliation for their complaints about discrimination.
- Plaintiffs argued Davis II was not barred because some events post-dated Davis I and some Title VII claims lacked EEOC right-to-sue letters when Davis I was filed.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding most claims barred by res judicata and the remaining promotion-related claims unsupported by evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata barred Davis II claims that overlapped with, or could have been brought in, Davis I under the “same nucleus of operative facts” test.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on the remaining claims tied to the 2001–2002 lieutenant promotion process (race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for DART and Rodriguez.
- The court held that claims in Davis II predating (and otherwise not specifically tied to) the lieutenant promotion process were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction as Davis I and could have been raised earlier.
- The court held that plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on the promotion-related discrimination claim because they did not show they met DART’s stated minimum qualifications and did not produce evidence of pretext.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to create a fact issue on retaliation because they did not provide evidence of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse action beyond conclusory assertions.
- The court held the alleged harassment did not meet the “severe or pervasive” standard required for a hostile work environment claim.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion bars later litigation when (1) the parties are identical or in privity, (2) the prior judgment was by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the prior judgment was final and on the merits (including dismissal with prejudice), and (4) the later action involves the same claim, assessed by whether it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and could have been raised earlier.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid claim preclusion on the ground that a Title VII right-to-sue letter had not yet issued if the plaintiff could have sought procedural relief (such as a stay) to consolidate related claims in the earlier action.
- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework for promotion discrimination, a plaintiff must show membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination; failure to show qualification defeats the prima facie case.
- To avoid summary judgment after an employer offers legitimate reasons, a plaintiff must present specific evidence of pretext; generalized allegations of manipulated criteria are insufficient.
- Retaliation requires evidence of protected activity, adverse action, and a causal link; unsupported assertions of causation do not create a triable issue.
- Hostile work environment requires harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that most of the officers’ claims were barred because they belonged in their earlier lawsuit, and that the remaining promotion-related discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-environment theories failed at summary judgment for lack of evidence on qualifications, pretext, causation, and severity.


Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004)