## Facts

- Rubin Kremer, an engineer, was laid off by Chemical Construction Corporation in 1975 and was not rehired after later applications.
- Kremer alleged employment discrimination based on national origin and Jewish faith.
- Kremer filed a Title VII charge with the EEOC, which referred the matter to the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYHRD) under Title VII’s deferral procedures.
- NYHRD investigated and dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause; the agency’s appeal board affirmed.
- Kremer sought judicial review; the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed the agency dismissal.
- The EEOC later issued a right-to-sue letter after concluding there was no reasonable cause.
- Kremer filed a Title VII action in federal district court; the court dismissed on res judicata grounds based on the New York judgment, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires federal courts to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment affirming a state agency’s rejection of an employment discrimination claim.
2. Whether Title VII creates an express or implied exception to § 1738 that permits a subsequent federal Title VII action notwithstanding the state court judgment.
3. Whether alleged deficiencies in the state administrative and judicial review process prevent preclusion on due process grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit.
- Because New York would treat the Appellate Division judgment as preclusive of further litigation based on the same grievance, § 1738 required federal courts to give the judgment the same preclusive effect.
- Title VII did not expressly or impliedly repeal or limit § 1738 with respect to state court judgments reviewing state discrimination proceedings.
- The New York procedures provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate and satisfied minimum due process requirements; therefore, preclusion was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect those judgments would receive in the rendering state’s courts.
- A later federal statute displaces § 1738 only upon an affirmative showing of a clear congressional purpose to do so; absent such a showing, ordinary rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply.
- Title VII’s administrative deferral scheme and availability of a federal civil action do not authorize a federal court to disregard a final state court judgment that reviewed and affirmed a state agency’s rejection of the same discrimination claim.
- Preclusion applies only if the state proceedings, including available judicial review, afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate and met due process standards.

## Conclusion

A Title VII plaintiff may not relitigate in federal court a discrimination claim that was rejected by a state agency and whose dismissal was affirmed by a state court, when state law would treat the judgment as preclusive and the state process satisfied due process; § 1738 compels federal courts to honor that preclusive effect.


Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982)