## Facts

- Gale Nestor worked as a machinist for Pratt & Whitney from 1973 until she was terminated on September 2, 1992 after an alleged altercation with a male co-worker.
- Nestor filed a sex-discrimination charge with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CCHRO), which was cross-filed with the EEOC under Title VII.
- Nestor pursued the CCHRO route rather than promptly seeking a federal right-to-sue letter after the deferral period.
- The CCHRO found for Nestor on her discrimination claim; Pratt sought judicial review in Connecticut courts, and Nestor prevailed.
- Nestor obtained back pay and interest through the CCHRO process and ensuing state-court review; the Connecticut Supreme Court denied further review.
- After the state proceedings concluded, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter.
- Nestor then filed a federal Title VII action in the District of Connecticut seeking attorney’s fees, compensatory damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages—remedies not available in the CCHRO proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut claim-preclusion principles bar a Title VII plaintiff, who prevailed in a state administrative proceeding and state-court review, from later bringing a federal Title VII action seeking remedies unavailable in the earlier forum.
2. Whether a federal action seeking attorney’s fees and compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a is a permissible supplemental proceeding after successful state administrative relief.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment for Pratt & Whitney and remanded.
- The court held that Connecticut res judicata did not bar Nestor’s federal Title VII action because it sought additional remedies unavailable in the CCHRO proceeding and its judicial review.
- The court treated the federal action as supplementing, not relitigating, the established state administrative liability determination.

## Legal Principles

- State claim-preclusion rules generally apply to later federal litigation, but they are applied with attention to the remedial limits of the prior forum when the later suit seeks relief the earlier forum could not award.
- Title VII permits a plaintiff who has pursued required state administrative processes to seek federal-court relief to complete the remedy, including attorney’s fees, consistent with New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey.
- Where the first proceeding could not provide certain Title VII remedies (including compensatory and punitive damages authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a), a later federal action seeking those remedies may proceed without being barred as the “same claim” for preclusion purposes.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a successful state administrative discrimination proceeding and its judicial review did not preclude a subsequent federal Title VII suit seeking attorney’s fees and compensatory and punitive damages that were unavailable in the state forum, and it vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.


Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney, 466 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006)