It happens from time to time. A client or a party representing themselves has what they think is a brilliant idea – “I will just write a letter to the judge or the court and explain my situation and they’ll understand.” This type of ex parte communication (talking to a judge without including the other party or their lawyer) is a bad, bad idea. Court’s will immediately forward the letter to counsel involved, as required by law, and will not address any request unless it is part of a properly filed motion. If reading this blog in an effort to figure out how to best communicate with a court or judge as a pro se (representing oneself) party, stop. Don’t do. Please go get a lawyer and listen to that lawyer’s advice.
When Michael A. Campbell decided to represent himself in his fight against the Township of North Brunswick, he likely didn’t realize how complex navigating the legal process would be. Campbell, an African-American police officer, believed he had a solid case for race/color discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. He filed an employment discrimination lawsuit in state court alleging that he faced a hostile work environment because he was Black and pointed other racially discriminatory practices. But when Campbell tried to bring additional claims in federal court years later, he ran into a brick wall: res judicata. This legal principle barred his new lawsuit because he had already pursued similar claims in state court.
Here’s why Campbell’s experience is a cautionary tale about the dangers of self-representation in complex employment law cases and why having a skilled employment attorney is crucial.
In his initial state court lawsuit, Campbell brought claims of race discrimination and a hostile work environment against the North Brunswick Police Department. He alleged that he was treated unfairly compared to his white colleagues and that he experienced retaliation after documenting an illegal room search and reporting racial profiling. According to Campbell, this environment of discrimination ultimately forced him to retire from the department in 2020.
Despite losing his state court case, Campbell was not deterred. He filed a new lawsuit in federal court in 2023, this time adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). He argued that his previous lawsuit did not address these federal claims because he had not yet received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) when the state court issued its final judgment.
After losing at the district court level, Campbell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which brings us to its decision in Campbell v. Twp. of N. Brunswick, No. 24-1447, 2024 WL 4274349, (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2024).
What is Res Judicata And Why Did It Apply Here?
Res judicata is a Latin term that translates to “a matter judged” or “a thing adjudicated.” Res judicata, also known as “claim preclusion,” refers to the legal principle that a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive and prevents the parties from relitigating the same issue in a future lawsuit. The idea is to avoid endless litigation and give finality to court decisions. In Campbell’s case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that he could—and should—have included his race and disability discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADA in his earlier state court case, even though he didn’t have his right-to-sue letter at the time. The Third Circuit held that Campbell’s federal claims were precluded because they arose out of the same set of facts as his state case.
Additionally, New Jersey’s “entire controversy” rule requires plaintiffs to bring all related claims in a single lawsuit. By failing to do so, Campbell essentially forfeited his right to bring those claims later. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also pointed out that he could have asked the state court to stay his lawsuit until he received his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Unfortunately, Campbell’s decision to proceed without legal representation and without understanding these procedural complexities came back to haunt him.
Why is Title VII So Important in Employment Discrimination Cases?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin. It also protects employees from retaliation if they complain about discrimination or participate in an investigation. In Campbell’s federal lawsuit, he claimed that he was retaliated against and subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race and disability, and because he spoke out against unethical practices like racial profiling and illegal searches.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed that Title VII claims have specific procedural requirements, including filing a charge with the EEOC and obtaining a right-to-sue letter before filing a lawsuit. Although Campbell eventually received his right-to-sue letter, it was too late to save his claims because he had already litigated related issues in state court. This highlights the importance of timing and strategy when pursuing employment discrimination claims.
Best Employment Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Title VII Doesn’t Protect Against All Retaliation
- How Long Do I Have To Bring A Discrimination Case Under Title VII?
- Proving Discrimination And Retaliation Claims Under Title VII
- What Is The Statute Of Limitations For A Title VII Claim?
How Did Self-Representation Hurt Campbell’s Case?
Representing yourself in a legal case, especially one as complex as an employment discrimination lawsuit, is rarely a good idea. While courts do give some leeway to pro se litigants (pro se means representing yourself without a lawyer), the legal system is filled with procedural rules and deadlines that can easily trip up someone without legal training.
In Campbell’s case, his failure to coordinate his state and federal claims led to his Title VII claims being barred under res judicata. An experienced employment lawyer would have known to ask the state court for a stay or to file a motion for a right-to-sue letter sooner, ensuring that Campbell’s federal claims were preserved.
Campbell’s situation worsened when he decided to write a letter directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit during his appeal. In his letter, Campbell alleged new instances of harassment and misconduct by the Defendants, hoping the Court would investigate. Unfortunately, this approach is not only ineffective but also highlights the dangers of self-representation. The Court responded firmly, stating that it “is not the appropriate forum for Campbell to articulate these fresh concerns,” and emphasized that introducing new facts or claims outside the formal legal process is generally not permissible (Campbell v. Twp. of N. Brunswick, 2024 WL 4274349, at *2). This misstep not only failed to advance his case but also underscored the importance of having an attorney to guide you through the legal process, ensuring that all issues are raised correctly and at the proper time.
Best Employee’s Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
- Should I Handle My Disability Discrimination Case By Myself? No
- Google Is Not A Substitute For Talking With An Employment Lawyer
- Employment Discrimination: Don’t Go It Alone
- Good Attorneys Will Help You Not Bring Bad Claims
Why Do You Need an Employment Attorney for the EEOC Process?
Navigating the EEOC process is complicated, and making a mistake can cost you your entire case. Here’s why you should consider hiring an attorney:
- Timing and Strategy: An attorney can help you decide the best time to file your EEOC complaint and how to handle overlapping state and federal claims.
- Avoiding Pitfalls: The EEOC process has strict timelines and procedural rules. Missing a deadline or failing to properly include all your claims can result in dismissal.
- Understanding Legal Concepts: Issues like res judicata and claim preclusion are complex. A skilled employment attorney will ensure that your case is handled correctly from the start.
- Maximizing Your Chances of Success: An experienced lawyer will help you gather evidence, prepare your case, and negotiate with your employer, giving you the best chance for a successful outcome.
Best Wrongful Termination Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Title VII And EEOC Deadlines Are Strict And Confusing: Get Attorney Help
- EEOC: Another Reason Why Not To Go It Alone
- Miss EEOC Deadlines, Lose Your Claims
- EEOC Charge Deadlines Cannot Be Extended – Even By Agreement
- How Do I Write A Good EEOC Complaint? Get Help
Why Choose Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm?
At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, we specialize in employment law and have extensive experience guiding employees through the EEOC process and beyond. We understand the nuances of federal and state discrimination claims and know how to avoid legal pitfalls like res judicata. With our vast trial experience and commitment to employee rights, we are the best choice to represent you in any employment dispute.
Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice regarding employment law, res judicata, or any other legal matter. For advice tailored to your specific situation, you should consult with a qualified employment attorney. No promises or guarantees are being made, and this blog is a legal advertisement. If you have questions about your rights as an employee or believe you may have a claim, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm for a free initial consultation.