Elvis TOLEFREE, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Appellee (1993)

City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir.1992), and to implement the preclusion rules of the state issuing the judgment.

City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir.1992), and to implement the preclusion rules of the state issuing the judgment.

Excerpt from: Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 980 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied. 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 284 , 126 L.Ed.2d 234 (1993).

Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 , 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889-90 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 284 , 126 L.Ed.2d 234 (1993).

Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 905 (1993).

See Carlisle, 849 F.2d at 1379 (state court’s finding that board had legitimate reasons for transferring school principal would collaterally estop him from asserting there were no legitimate reasons for his transfer but did not estop him from asserting that there were illegitimate racial reasons in addition: “The absence of racial bias on the part of the board was not a finding necessary to the judgment and was not made in the course of the state proceedings.”); Tolefree v. …

See also, Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Morrison-Quirk Grain Corp., 987 F.2d 1335, 1339 (8th Cir.1993) (Farmland ); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir.1992).

Agency v. Buchanan, 268 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir.2001); Haberer v. Wood-bury County, 188 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir.1999); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (8th Cir.1992).

See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) (“motivating factor” discrimination also prohibited); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (analytical framework and authorization for “mixed motive” discrimination claim); Kriss v. Sprint Communications Co., Ltd., 58 F.3d 1276, 1280-83 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Price Water-house for authority for “mixed motive” discrimination claims); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th …

Instead “[a] plaintiff can establish a violation of Title VII under a ‘mixed motives’ theory by showing that [gender] discrimination played a role in the challenged employment decision.” Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir.1992).

Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1993).

Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir.1992); Goolsby v. Derby, 189 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Iowa 1971) (“ ‘The doctrine of res judicata’ is well established, and it may exist under two situations: (1) as a bar to a second action upon the cause of action, and (2) as a bar to relitigation of particular facts or issues in a different cause of action.... [I]n both instances, the parties ... must be identical or *1364 in privity.... ”).

See Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 , 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co., 312 U.S. 183, 188 , 61 S.Ct. 513, 515 , 85 L.Ed. 725 (1940); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (8th Cir.1992); Butler v. City of N. Little Rock, 980 F.2d 501 , 503 (8th Cir.1992); Lane v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 1247, 1250 (8th Cir.1990) (all holding that federal courts must give same preclusive effect to…

Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 , 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1889 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 284 , 126 L.Ed.2d 234 (1993).

Corp., 456 U.S. at 466 , 102 S.Ct. at 1889 ; Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (8th Cir.1992); Butler v. City of N. Little Rock, 980 F.2d 501, 503 ; (all holding that federal courts must give same preclusive effect to state-court judgments that those judgments would be given in courts of state of their origin).

See Tolfree v. Kansas City, Missouri, 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that a city personnel board determination that a termination for bad performance was "justified" did not preclude plaintiff from pursuing a Title VII "mixed-motive" claim under Price Waterhouse); cf. Petition of Gilpatric, 138 N.H. 360, 363 (1994) (holding that a superior court finding that an employee was "sufficiently disabled" to receive total disability benefits was not identical to an adm…

See Tolefree v. Kansas City, Missouri, 980 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that a city personnel board determination that a termination for bad performance was “justified” did not preclude plaintiff from pursuing a Title VII “mixed-motive” claim under Price Waterhouse); cf. Petition of Gilpatric, 138 N.H. 360, 363 , 639 A.2d 267 (1994) (holding that a superior court finding that an employee was “sufficiently disabled” to receive total disability benefits was not iden…

See Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir. 1992) (preclusive effect of state judgments), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 284 (1993); Matter of Guardianship of Janke, 500 N.W.2d 207, 209 (S.D. 1993) (res judicata standards); Black Hills Jewelry Mfg.

See, e.g., Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, 980 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. en banc 1992) (finding, in case of a firefighter who alleged he was discriminated against and terminated due to his race, the issue decided in the prior litigation was not identical because the Board never considered any of the discrimination or retaliation issues, id. at 1174 ).

See Tolefree v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 980 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (8th Cir.1992) ("Federal courts must `give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the courts of the state from which the judgments emerged.'"), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 284 , 126 L.Ed.2d 234 (1993), quoting Kremer v. Chemical Constr.

See 980 F.2d at 1172 .