Bryant L. Graham v. Healthplex Associates , Inc .

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 11, 2023*
Decided September 15, 2023
Before
F RANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
I LANA DIAMOND R OVNER , Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. K IRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1525
BRYANT L. GRAHAM ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HEALTHPLEX A SSOCIATES , I NC ., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division.
No. 1:21-cv-03079-JPH-MKK
James Patrick Hanlon, Judge.
O R D E R
In 2019 Healthplex fired Bryant Graham. He sued Healthplex and one of his super-
visors (Adnan Hyder) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court
dismissed that suit with prejudice. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86193 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2021).
Graham abandoned his appeal, which we dismissed on his motion. No. 21-1770 (7th
Cir. May 14, 2021).
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-1525 Page 2
Instead of pursuing that appeal, Graham sued Healthplex and Hyder again, adding
some state-law claims. He also added a new defendant: Renee Clark McDonald, another
of his supervisors. The district court dismissed the new Title VII claim as barred by
claim preclusion (res judicata). Healthplex and Hyder had been parties to the first case,
and Clark McDonald was in privity with them, the judge concluded. 2023 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 34672 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2023). The judge then relinquished supplemental jurisdic-
tion over all state-law claims.
Graham’s appeal does not contest the ground on which he lost in the district court.
Instead he insists that he should prevail on the merits. But that contention does not enti-
tle him to file multiple suits about the same events. One complete round of litigation on
a given claim is all any litigant receives. See Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fash-
ions Group, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589, 1594–95 (2020). That requires us to affirm the judgment
with respect to Healthplex and Hyder.
The situation with respect to Clark McDonald is more complex. It is true that she
was in the same general position as Hyder, but an employer (such as Healthplex) and
an employee (such as Clark McDonald) often have different interests in court—and
Clark McDonald was not “in privity” with Hyder in the sense that their legal entitle-
ments necessarily are the same. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). It seems to us
better to say that Graham cannot recover against Clark McDonald under Title VII be-
cause that statute authorizes suits against employers but not against fellow employees.
42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a). (Title VII authorizes suits against some employment agencies and
labor unions, but supervisors are not in either category.) Whether Graham’s loss in a Ti-
tle VII suit against Hyder precludes all litigation against Clark McDonald in state court
under state law is not a subject that we need address.
A FFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --