Absence of EEOC Right-to-Sue Letter Does Not Defeat Claim Preclusion in Title VII Suits

Introduction

Watkins v. Genesh, Inc., No. 24-3043 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) presents a critical question at the intersection of Title VII exhaustion requirements and claim preclusion doctrine. Kenya Watkins sued her former employer, Genesh, Inc. (doing business as Burger King), first under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, then later under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. The District Court dismissed her § 1981 claims on the merits and later dismissed her Title VII complaint on timeliness grounds. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal on claim preclusion grounds, holding that even in the absence of an EEOC right-to-sue letter at the time of her first suit, Watkins had a full and fair opportunity to bring her Title VII claims and is therefore barred from relitigating them.

Key issues:

Whether a prior final judgment in a non-Title VII suit precludes a later Title VII claim arising from the same employment transaction.
Whether the absence of an EEOC right-to-sue letter at the time of the first suit deprives a plaintiff of a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” her Title VII claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Holmes, reaffirmed its decision in Wilkes v. Wyoming Dep’t of Employment Div. of Lab. Stds., 314 F.3d 501 (10th Cir. 2002). The court held:

Watkins’s § 1981 suit (filed while her EEOC charges were pending) gave rise to a final, on-the-merits judgment.
The parties in both suits were identical, and both actions stemmed from the same employment relationship and alleged misconduct.
Under the transactional test, Watkins’s Title VII claims “could have been raised” in the initial suit by procedural alternatives—requesting a right-to-sue letter after 180 days or staying the § 1981 action pending EEOC resolution and then amending upon receipt of the letter.
The absence of a right-to-sue letter did not deprive Watkins of a full and fair opportunity to litigate her Title VII claims.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Title VII complaint on claim preclusion grounds, without reaching the timeliness issue.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Wilkes v. Wyoming Dep’t of Employment Div. of Lab. Stds., 314 F.3d 501 (10th Cir. 2002) Reaffirmed and followed. Wilkes held that a final judgment in a non-Title VII suit precludes subsequent Title VII claims arising from the same employment relationship, even absent a right-to-sue letter.
Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 972 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1992) Persuasive authority holding that exhaustion requirements do not override claim preclusion when the plaintiff had procedural means to bring Title VII claims in the initial action.
Additional circuit court decisions (e.g., Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Assocs., 999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993); Rivers v. Barberton Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. 1998)) Reflect a consensus that failure to exhaust does not necessarily prevent claim preclusion if procedural alternatives exist.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning traces four essential elements of claim preclusion:

Final Judgment on the Merits: Watkins’s § 1981 action was dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
Identity of Parties: Plaintiff and Defendant remain the same in both suits.
Identity of Cause of Action: Under the “transactional approach” (Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24), both suits stem from the same employment transaction—alleged harassment and discrimination at Burger King.
Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate: The court rejects the notion that statutory exhaustion requirements inherently deprive litigants of a full and fair opportunity. Watkins could have:
- Requested an EEOC right-to-sue letter 180 days after her charge and then amended her § 1981 complaint to add Title VII counts;
- Sought a stay of her § 1981 suit pending EEOC proceedings and, upon receipt of a right-to-sue letter, sought leave to amend.

Absent these alternatives, the court reasons, plaintiffs might evade claim preclusion simply by waiting for an administrative exhaustion milestone, which would undermine the finality of judicial decisions and encourage serial litigation.

Impact and Practical Consequences

Watkins v. Genesh reinforces and clarifies an important caveat for practitioners:

Title VII claimants must recognize that filing a non-Title VII suit (e.g., § 1981 or ADEA) over the same facts, without raising related Title VII counts, may preclude those counts later—even if the EEOC hasn’t yet issued a right-to-sue letter.
Plaintiffs should consider procedural mechanisms—early request for a right-to-sue letter or court-approved stays—to preserve Title VII claims in initial litigation.
Counsel must weigh strategic decisions:
- Proceed promptly in court under non-Title VII theories versus
- Waiting for EEOC exhaustion, risking that a prior dismissal will bar subsequent Title VII relief.

Future cases in the Tenth Circuit are likely to apply Watkins rigorously, resulting in fewer successive suits over the same set of facts and greater emphasis on comprehensive pleading in the first action.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata): Bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior final judgment between the same parties.
Transactional Approach: All claims arising from the same transaction or series of transactions share a “cause of action” and are subject to preclusion.
Right-to-Sue Letter: EEOC document authorizing a Title VII suit. While usually a prerequisite, its absence does not automatically defeat claim preclusion when other procedural options exist.
Full and Fair Opportunity Exception: A narrow due-process safeguard. It does not apply merely because a Title VII claim was unexhausted; only where procedural or systemic unfairness prevents meaningful litigation.

Conclusion

Watkins v. Genesh reaffirms that a Title VII plaintiff who initiates a non-Title VII action over the same transaction, without raising Title VII theories, risks total preclusion of those theories—even absent a right-to-sue letter at the time. The decision underscores the transactional scope of claim preclusion and narrows the “full and fair opportunity” exception. Litigants and counsel must now plan carefully: early administrative steps and vigilant case management are essential to preserve Title VII rights. In the broader legal landscape, Watkins advances judicial efficiency and finality by discouraging serial litigation, at the cost of increased procedural diligence for discrimination plaintiffs.