Originially from: World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR)

Denials of Certiorari
1. Nixon v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., 210 F.3d 814 (8th Cir.
Apr. 24, 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 383 (Oct. 30, 2000)
In Nixon, the Eighth Circuit had ruled that the principles of res judicata
and collateral estoppel prevented the Missouri Commission on Human Rights
from seeking monetary relief on behalf of an employee when an arbitrator had
already ruled against him on his discrimination claims. The state agency,
however, was not precluded from seeking injunctive relief because in that type of
suit the agency is seeking to vindicate public rights and is not acting as the
representative of a particular employee.
Excerpts from the lower court opinion follow (some footnotes and
citations are omitted) (boldface added to signal important language):
[…]
“When Anthony Hoskins was terminated from his employment as a
stockbroker with Merrill Lynch, he submitted several claims to arbitration,
asserting among other things that his termination violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964…and the Missouri Human Rights Act…. The submission of
his claims to arbitration was pursuant to an employment contract known as a
“Form U-4,” which Mr. Hoskins signed at the commencement of his employment
with Merrill Lynch, and that provides that the employee must submit certain
employment-related disputes to arbitration. The arbitrator ultimately found
against Mr. Hoskins and dismissed his claims with prejudice.
“While Mr. Hoskins’s dispute was pending in arbitration, he filed an
administrative complaint with the MCHR [Missouri Commission on Human
Rights]. Some time after the arbitrator found against Mr. Hoskins, the MCHR
initiated an administrative action against Merrill Lynch, contending that Merrill
Lynch had violated rights guaranteed to Mr. Hoskins under Missouri law. Merrill
Lynch then filed this complaint in federal court, seeking to enjoin the MCHR
from proceeding with its administrative action. Merrill Lynch argued that, in light
of the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss Mr. Hoskins’s claims with prejudice, the
Federal Arbitration Act…precluded the MCHR from bringing its administrative
action against Merrill Lynch. The district court enjoined the MCHR from seeking
monetary relief on behalf of Mr. Hoskins in its administrative action but refused
to enjoin it from seeking injunctive relief on his behalf in that action.