Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Collateral estoppel

Collateral estoppel
Jaworowski v NYC Transit Authority, 2nd Circuit, 182 F. 3d 900, Cert. denied, 99?542

The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating issues previously considered by one forum in a second forum. The doctrine is based on the concept that a party may not relitigate an issue if the identical issue was necessarily decided in a previous proceeding, provided that the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.

The Jaworowski case demonstrates the elements considered by courts when determining whether the doctrine applies in a particular situation with respect to whether or not the identical issue was decided in a previous proceeding or whether there was an opportunity for such issues to be considered.

Leonard Jaworowski was terminated from his position with the New York Transit Authority following a disciplinary arbitration. He brought an Article 75 action in State Supreme Court in an effort to have the arbitration award vacated. Unsuccessful in this effort, Jaworowski next filed a lawsuit in federal district court pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 alleging ?various constitutional infirmities in an arbitration proceeding arising out of disciplinary charges brought against him by the Authority.?

The Authority claimed Jaworowski?s federal action was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel because he already had ?his day in court? on these issues as a result his bringing an Article 75 action. The district court agreed, ruling that Jaworowski was estopped from suing on these claims because they had been previously litigated in his Article 75 action brought in New York state court. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court?s ruling.

Jaworowski?s major argument was that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should not bar his federal suit because the claims he was asserting in his Section 1983 complaint were not identical to those he litigated in state court. His reason was that the standards of review of arbitrations differ between New York state courts and federal courts.

According to Jaworowski, to prevail in state court he would have had to prove that the alleged due process violations rendered the arbitration irrational, while in federal court he need only show that the arbitration violated due process.

The Circuit Court of Appeals said that his argument ?mistakenly conflates two different grounds for setting aside an arbitration under New York law.? Although one ground for vacating an arbitration decision is to show that the award is ?totally irrational,? a court applying New York law will also vacate an arbitration if it finds that the arbitration violated due process, citing Beckman v Greentree Securities, Inc., 87 NY2d 566.

The Circuit Court said that the district court correctly dismissed his Section 1983 action because New York State courts do not review constitutional challenges to arbitration decisions more deferentially than do federal courts.
.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 14, 2010 (boomark / email).