No. 25-58

Andrew Findlay v. Geoquip, Inc.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-exhaustion employment-discrimination limitations-period res-judicata retaliation title-vii
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity ERISA TradeSecret EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a Title VII retaliation claim based on post-employment conduct when the prior lawsuit addressed only pre-termination conduct, particularly when the subsequent claims were not ripe during the prior litigation?

2. Is a plaintiff required to amend an initial EEOC charge to include distinct acts of post-employment retaliation, or may they file a separate EEOC charge without violating Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirements?

3. Does the 300-day limitations period for filing an EEOC charge for a retaliatory lawsuit commence with a threat of litigation or with the actual filing of the lawsuit?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a Title VII retaliation claim based on post-employment conduct when the prior lawsuit addressed only pre-termination conduct, and does the 300-day limitations period commence with a threat of litigation or actual lawsuit filing?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-15
Waiver of Geoquip, Inc. of right to respond submitted.
2025-08-15
Waiver of right of respondent Geoquip, Inc. to respond filed.
2025-07-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 15, 2025)

Attorneys

Andrew Findlay
Todd Michael GaynorGaynor Law Center, P.C., Petitioner
Geoquip, Inc.
Anne Graham BibeauWoods Rogers Vandeventer Black PLC, Respondent