Hill v. AMMC, Inc.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Michelle Hill’s wrongful-discharge action against AMMC, Inc. The court held that the claim was barred by claim preclusion because a federal court had previously dismissed the same state-law claim as time-barred under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act. The opinion addresses the merits and finality requirements for claim preclusion and the preclusive effect of federal judgments in state court.

Holdings

1. When matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, a motion to dismiss is treated as a motion for summary judgment.
2. Claim preclusion bars relitigation when the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, was final, was on the merits, and involved the same parties or their privies and the same claim or cause of action.
3. A federal judgment dismissing Hill's wrongful-discharge claim as time barred under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act was a judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
4. The federal dismissal was final for claim-preclusion purposes because, by the time of appellate disposition, the related Title VII claim had also been dismissed, no appeal had been taken, and the time for appeal had expired.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Lancaster County District Court independently determined that Hill's wrongful-discharge claim was governed by the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act's 90-day limitations period rather than Nebraska's general four-year tort limitations period.
2. Whether the federal court's dismissal of Hill's state-law wrongful-discharge claim was a judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion.
3. Whether the federal court's dismissal of the state-law claim was final for purposes of claim preclusion while Hill's related Title VII claim remained pending.
4. Whether claim preclusion barred Hill's substantially identical 2017 state-law wrongful-discharge action.

Disposition

affirmed