Peter Daza v. Indiana, et al.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110-114 (2002) held that failures to hire were separate discrete acts, not continuing acts, even though they are related acts. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 1589, 1594-1595 (2020) held that claims for related acts that occurred at different times with different facts are not in the same transaction and are not barred by claim preclusion. By stating in this case before the Court that discrete acts before a judgment and related discrete acts after a judgment are in the same transaction, the Seventh Circuit has created the problem of precluding cases for new related discrete acts that occur after a judgment and creating unlawful immunity for new related discrete acts that occur after a judgment. By stating that discrete acts before a judgment and related discrete acts after a judgment are one transaction and must be litigated together, the Seventh Circuit has created the problem of extending for years the limitation periods for the one long transaction until the related discrete acts stop. The Seventh Circuit indicated that its decision below was settled law and threatened sanctions if an argument is made against the decision. App. 8. This case presents the following question: whether a judgment on discrete acts that occur before a judgment