## Facts

- Jeanne Harrington, a former employee of the Vandalia-Butler public school system, sued the Vandalia-Butler Board of Education in federal court alleging sex-based employment discrimination under Title VII.
- The district court found discrimination and entered judgment for Harrington, including an award characterized as compensatory damages.
- On appeal in that first case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the discrimination finding but reversed the compensatory-damages award on the ground that such damages were not recoverable under Title VII as then applied.
- While the first appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided *Monell*, recognizing that local government entities may be liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation.
- After *Monell*, Harrington filed a second federal action against the Board based on the same alleged discriminatory employment conduct, this time seeking damages under § 1983.
- The Board moved for summary judgment, asserting res judicata (claim preclusion) based on the earlier Title VII litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 1983 action filed after *Monell*, seeking damages for the same alleged sex discrimination previously litigated under Title VII, is barred by res judicata.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Board.
- The court held that Harrington’s § 1983 suit was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same transaction or nucleus of operative facts as the prior Title VII action.
- The court rejected the argument that *Monell*’s intervening change in law permitted relitigation after a final judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Claim preclusion bars not only claims actually litigated, but also claims and legal theories that could have been raised in the prior action, when both actions arise from the same transaction or nucleus of operative facts and the first ended in a final judgment on the merits between the same parties (or their privies).
- A plaintiff may not split a single employment-discrimination controversy into successive lawsuits by changing legal theories or seeking a different form of relief based on the same alleged wrong.
- An intervening change in decisional law generally does not defeat claim preclusion; final judgments remain conclusive even if later developments would support additional or different remedies.

## Conclusion

Because Harrington’s post-*Monell* § 1983 complaint sought a new damages remedy for the same alleged discrimination already reduced to a final federal judgment, the Sixth Circuit held the second action claim-precluded and affirmed judgment for the Board.


Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Bd. of Educ., 649 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1981)