Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Houston Discrimination Suit

A US Magistrate judge has recommended that a second lawsuit filed by a Houston firefighter challenging a Title VII consent decree on promotions, be dismissed. Guadalupe Guzman filed the action pro se in 2024 following the dismissal of a similar suit he filed in 2022 (referred to as Guzman I).

In both cases, Guzman challenged a consent decree approved of by US District Court Judge Lee H. Rosenthal on February 6, 2012, that established a procedure for promotions within the Houston Fire Department. The suit, titled Bazile v. City of Houston, 858 F. Supp. 2d 718, 721 (S.D. Tex. 2012), was brought by seven black firefighters who alleged that promotional exams for the captain and senior-captain positions were racially discriminatory (disparate impact).

In 2022, Guzman sued alleging that promotions to captain pursuant to the consent decree continued to “unfairly impact minority firefighters” including himself. He alleged violations of Title VII, and civil rights violations under 42 USC §1981 and §1983. That case was dismissed on January 5, 2024 with the court concluding the city “had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not promoting Guzman and the Bazile case did not give him a “right” to a promotion.”

Guzman then sued again (Guzman II), prompting the city to move to dismiss the case based upon res judicata. Quoting from the decision (citations and quotation marks removed for clarity of reading):

• Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars the litigation of claims that either have been litigated or should have been raised in an earlier suit.
• Dismissal … on res judicata grounds is appropriate when the elements of res judicata are apparent on the face of the pleadings.
• The res judicata bar applies if: (1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.
• The Fifth Circuit employs a transactional test to determine whether a subsequent action involves the same claim or cause of action as a prior action.
• Under this test, a prior judgment’s preclusive effect extends to all rights of the plaintiff with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the original action arose.
• All four elements of res judicata are present here. This case is precluded by the prior final order in Guzman I, Civil Action 22-2580.
  • 1. Parties are identical or in privity.
  • 2. Prior rulings were made by courts of competent jurisdiction.
  • 3. Prior rulings were final orders on the merits.
  • 4. This case involves the same claim or cause of action as Guzman I.
• For the reasons discussed above, the court recommends that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss be GRANTED and this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Here is a copy of the Magistrate’s ruling. Below is a copy of the decision in Bazile.