A sales agent working for Hilton Grand Vacation Company cannot proceed on lawsuit relating to age discrimination allegations raised in a prior suit. In Henao v. Hilton Grand Vacation Company, LLC, the United States District Court for the Federal District of Hawaii dismissed an age discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the issues underling the lawsuit were previously dismissed in a separate lawsuit alleging retaliation in violation of the Hawaii Whistleblowers Protection Act (HWPA).
The plaintiff, Jose Henao, alleged that he was terminated on July 4, 2016 after complaining that Hilton’s Director of Sales was targeting older sales agents for termination and replacing them with younger workers. He filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August of 2016, and a state court HWPA case in November of 2016. The state court case was removed to federal court the following month. Hilton filed a motion for summary judgment shortly thereafter, arguing that Henao’s whistleblower claim could not stand because he suffered no adverse employment action. While Henao alleged he was terminated in July of 2016, Hilton argued that he went out on medical leave after being informed that he was not meeting sales performance criteria and that Hilton would be contacting him about next steps. The company reached out to Henao several times to explore options in the months that followed, but he did not continue the dialogue. As a result, Hilton marked Henao as an active employee out on personal leave, but did not take him off the payroll.
After considering the parties’ arguments, the court ultimately granted Hilton’s motion for summary judgment on the HWPA claim in October of 2017. Henao filed an appeal of that decision the following month, and the appeal remains pending.
In the meantime, Henao filed a second lawsuit against Hilton in September of 2017 on the basis of the same events that were the subject of the prior HWPA lawsuit. Instead of alleging that Hilton’s actions violated Hawaii whistleblower law, however, the second lawsuit alleges that they violate the ADEA. In response to the law suit, Hilton filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of res judicata.
Res judicata or claim preclusion applies where, when considering the current lawsuit and a related prior lawsuit, there exists (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the parties are the same. In this case, Hilton argued that there is an identity of claims because the lawsuits are based upon the same set of incidents occurring on the same dates. Henao argued in response that there was not an identity of claims between the two lawsuits because one involved a HWPA claim and the other involved the ADEA. The court concluded that applying a different legal theory to the same set of facts is insufficient to avoid res judicata.
Henao also argued that claim preclusion should not apply because he could not bring suit under the ADEA until after receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC in June of 2017. The court disagreed, however, reasoning that while Title VII requires an employee to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit, the ADEA requires that an employee file suit in court within sixty days of filing a charge of discrimination. Henao failed to do this and did not give an explanation for that failure. As such, the court concluded that the facts supported the conclusion that the two cases presented an identity of claims.
The court further concluded that the first case reached a final judgment on the merits when the court granted Hilton’s motion for summary judgment on Henao’s HWPA claim, and the parties to both lawsuits were identical. Because all elements of claim preclusion were found to exist in this matter, the court granted Hilton’s motion and dismissed Henao’s case.