## Facts

- Cynthia Swaida worked for Gentiva Health Services from October 5, 1992, until her termination on October 17, 1997.
- On October 17, 2000, she sued Gentiva (initially in Massachusetts Superior Court) alleging retaliatory termination based on her cooperation with a U.S. Department of Labor investigation.
- Gentiva removed the retaliation case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- Swaida did not oppose the motion; on March 1, 2001, the court dismissed the retaliation action.
- On May 10, 2002, Swaida (initially pro se) filed a second federal action challenging the same October 17, 1997 termination, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B.
- She alleged receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter in February 2002; the pleadings did not establish a timely administrative filing for the state claim.

## Issues

1. Whether claim preclusion bars a second lawsuit asserting age-discrimination theories when a prior lawsuit between the same parties challenging the same termination was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Whether the Massachusetts age-discrimination claim was independently barred by the applicable limitations period.

## Decision

- The court granted Gentiva’s motion to dismiss.
- The action was dismissed on claim-preclusion grounds because the earlier Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was a final judgment on the merits, the parties were identical, and both suits arose from the same termination event.
- The court also held the Massachusetts chapter 151B age-discrimination claim was time-barred because it was brought more than three years after the 1997 termination.

## Legal Principles

- A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) generally operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
- Claim preclusion applies when there is (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) identity of parties or privies, and (3) identity of the cause of action measured by whether the claims arise from the same transaction or nucleus of operative facts.
- Under the transactional test, claim preclusion bars not only claims actually litigated, but also claims that could have been raised in the earlier action, even if the later action asserts a different statutory theory.
- Pro se status and fairness arguments do not create an exception to claim preclusion where the elements are satisfied.
- Massachusetts chapter 151B employment-discrimination claims are subject to statutory timing requirements; claims filed beyond the applicable three-year limitations period are time-barred.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a second suit challenging an employee’s termination because an earlier, unappealed Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal precluded later age-discrimination theories arising from the same termination, and the state-law age-discrimination claim was independently untimely.


Swaida v. Gentiva Health Servs., 238 F. Supp. 2d 325 (D. Mass. 2002)