Laserfiche WebLink
employer under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, id. at 167. The court of appeals held that an <br />earlier state discrimination complaint by the plaintiff adjudicated, id. at 168 -169, all <br />of her alleged employment discrimination charges arising out of the circumstances she <br />alleged in the later section 1981 complaint. The latter action was therefore barred by <br />the doctrine of res judicata, id. at 177. <br />The question of different agencies' enjoying separate enforcement <br />prerogatives stemming from the same set of circumstances was also before the court <br />in George H. Lee Co. v. FTC, 113 F.2d 583 (8th Cir. 1940). Discussing the doctrine <br />of res judicata, the court said, id. at 585 -586: <br />Although the remedies sought by the government in the two <br />proceedings were different -- condemnation in the first, and a cease and <br />desist order in the second, —it is obvious that the alleged falsity of bhe <br />representations of the petitioner with respect to the therapeutic value and <br />effectiveness of its product constituted the main basis for each of the <br />proceedings; that in the libel proceeding the court determined that the <br />representations that the product was a remedy for tapeworms and <br />pinworms as well as large roundworms were not false, while the <br />Commission later determined that the representations with respect to <br />pinworms and large tapeworms were false and misleading. It is equally <br />obvious that the Commission completely disregarded the effect of the <br />decree entered in the libel case in conducting its proceedings and in <br />making its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. <br />WQCD proposes that res judicata does not apply if the agency lacked <br />authority to rule on the claim sought to be barred. The cases it cites for this <br />22 This was an appeal of an agency's cease and desist order to prevent the sale of <br />"Gizzard Capsules" advertised to cure tapeworms and pinworms in poultry on the grounds that <br />the advertising was false and misleading, unfair methods of competition in interstate <br />commerce within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The defense was that <br />these claims were the subject matter of an earlier, unsuccessful libel action for misbranding <br />brought under the federal Food and Drug Act. The libel action was a judicial proceeding; the <br />origin of the appeal was administrative. <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 24 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />