Retaliation Cases

The trial court improperly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The District Court's decision dismissing appellant's Title VII retaliation claim \with prejudice\ for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the unique procedural facts of this case, did not serve to bar appellant from pursuing a R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim in state court. The District Court's judgment did not meet the first element of res judicata/claim preclusion as it was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the retaliation claim. However, the trial court properly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 race discrimination claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The judgment met all the elements of res judicata/claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the race discrimination claim. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Case is remanded to the trial court.

Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Appellant's handwritten complaint alleges that respondents misrepresented the parties' work relationship by stating in an \employment contract\ that appellant was a \contractor\ who worked for an \employer\ and then later asserting that appellant was an \independent contractor.\ We conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state claims for misrepresentation of employment relationship, fraudulent misrepresentation, and whistleblower retaliation. But we also conclude that the complaint fails to state claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.