Decision 1080S – State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (Janowicz)
LA-CE-257-S
Decision Date: January 12, 1995
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: State discriminated against employee for his exercise of protected activity.
Disposition: Dismissed. Employee barred from relitigating matter previously resolved in another forum.
Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26038
Decision Headnotes
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and decided in a prior proceeding, if (1) the issue is identical to one necessarily decided at a previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding; p. 14, proposed dec., citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468. The three elements of the collateral estoppel test were met in this case because: (1) the issues adjudicated in a prior state court action filed by Janowicz were identical to the issues before PERB, and in that prior case, judgment was entered against Janowicz; (2) the state court judgement was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the court judgement was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Board does not consider exceptions which do not comply with PERB Regulation 32300.
1405.01000 – In General
Doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and decided in a prior proceeding, if (1) the issue is identical to one necessarily decided at a previous proceeding; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding; p. 14, proposed dec., citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468. The three elements of the collateral estoppel test were met in this case because (1) the issues adjudicated in a prior state court action filed by Janowicz were identical to the issues before PERB, and in that prior case, judgment was entered against Janowicz; (2) the state court judgment was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the court judgment was final and was a conclusive determination of the retaliation issue raised in that case; and (3) the parties were the
1405.02000 – Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Granting of motion for summary judgement is a final determination on the merits; p. 17, proposed dec.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Board does not consider exceptions which do not comply with PERB Regulation 32300.