Quentin Borges-Silva v. Michael S. Regan, in His Official Capacity as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

T his case a r ises f rom Petitioner ’s w rong f u l termination from the Environmental Protection Agency. This termination was based on the Petitioner’s failure to complete a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). There was a separate Administrative litigation before the Petitioner raised his identical claims concurrently before Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and after a four-day hearing, the EEOC ruled in significant favor of Petitioner, who established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subjected to a hostile work environment during the PIP period and after, until he was terminated based on his sex and prior EEO activity, and that he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) in reprisal for his prior EEO activity. In his Federal Court litigation, the Petitioner raised these claims and that they were decided in his favor by the EEOC as a defense to his wrongful termination. However, the District Court erroneously held they were not precluded from these findings because “the same issue” was not raised in the EEOC case. The question presented is: Whether offensive collateral estoppel in a concurrent administrative proceeding is binding in a district court proceeding arising from the same cause of action.