Noel A. Cummings v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Michael C. York, Joseph Calabrese

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 18a0483n.06
No. 18-3169
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOEL A. CUMMINGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MICHAEL C.
YORK, JOSEPH CALABRESE, and
SCOTT FERRARO,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. In this employment-discrimination case, Noel
A. Cummings seeks to proceed with a lawsuit against the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority (GCRTA) and three of its employees based on the termination of her employment. But
she settled an earlier case against GCRTA that released GCRTA and all of its employees from any
and all claims related to Cummings’s employment with the company. At issue here is whether
that settlement agreement precludes the current suit under the doctrine of res judicata.
In August 2014, Cummings filed a complaint against GCRTA and four of its employees,
asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title
VII), and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cummings v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth.,
88 F. Supp. 3d 812, 815 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (Cummings I). That complaint alleged that Cummings
was discriminated against by being placed on “crisis suspension” for refusing training and refusing

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 18-3169
Cummings v. GCRTA, et al
2
to sign a mandatory “employee-assistance-program referral.” While that case was still pending,
Cummings’s employment with GCRTA was terminated. Two days later, the parties settled
Cummings I. That settlement released and discharged GCRTA and all of its employees “from any
and all claims . . . , whether presently known or unknown, arising out of or related in any way to
her employment with the GCRTA . . . .”
In the present suit, Cummings sued GCRTA, Michael C. York (individually and as Deputy
General Manager of Operations at GCRTA), Joseph Calbrese (individually and as General
Manager and Chief Executive of GCRTA), and Scott Ferraro (individually and as Director of
Labor and Employee Relations at GCRTA). The complaint asserts two Title VII violations and
two § 1983 violations.
Cummings alleges that by wrongfully terminating her employment, the defendants treated
her differently than they subsequently treated a similarly situated male employee. Specifically,
she alleges that Richard Newell—Director of Service Quality Management at GCRTA and
Cummings’s former supervisor—initiated a physical confrontation with another GCRTA
employee and was placed on “decision-making leave” by the defendants but was not discharged.
All of the disciplinary actions regarding Newell took place after Cummings’s employment was
terminated and her prior case was settled.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the doctrine of res
judicata precludes Cummings’s claims. Specifically, the court held that Cummings’s claims in the
present suit are covered by the settlement agreement. [Id.]
After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, we agree with the district court’s dismissal of Cummings’s complaint. Because the reasoning
that supports the dismissal of her complaint has been clearly articulated by the district court, the

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 18-3169
Cummings v. GCRTA, et al
3
issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be unduly duplicative. Accordingly, the
decision rendered by the Honorable Sara Lioi, United District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, is AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning detailed in her Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated January 17, 2018.

-- 3 of 3 --