Hammoudah v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Med. Ctr.

8 OCAHO 1047 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER v. MAHMOUD M. HAMMOUDAH, Complainant, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding ) OCAHO Case No. 98B00072 ) RUSH-PRESBYTERIAN– ) MARVIN H. MORSE ST LUKE’S MEDICAL ) Administrative Law Judge CENTER, Respondent. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ) ORDER (March 2, 2000) While this case is pending before me on motion by Respondent (Respondent or Rush) for summary decision, and on related plead- ings by both parties, I issue this order to dispose of the most recent filing, i.e., Respondent’s Motion for Leave to File Supple- mental Brief Concerning New Authority. Filed February 18, 2000, Respondent’s motion transmits a February 17, 2000, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to Rush against Complainant in Hammoudah v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med- ical Center, Case No. 98 C 5050, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Reciting that ‘‘Rush believes’’ that the district court action ‘‘has res judicata and/or fact collateral estoppel effect on the IRCA case’’ before me, Respondent softens its stance, suggesting instead that ‘‘at a minimum, the Federal Court’s decision has significant prece- dential value here.’’ Rush concludes by requesting ‘‘leave to file a short brief addressing the impact’’ of the district court action. Although intuitively and in most cases I opt for inclusion, I will deny Respondent’s motion.

Had the district court ruled against Rush I would not suppose Respondent would have filed the same 725 8 OCAHO 1047 motion here. It is not appropriate to clutter this already volumi- nous record with argumentation that is doomed to failure. Respondent’s ‘‘belief’’ implicitly ignores the legislative assign- ments of jurisdiction for classifications of workplace discrimination: (1) the parceling out of national origin jurisdiction in 8 U.S.C. § 1324b as between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion (EEOC) and the courts on the one hand and the Department of Justice (DOJ) with concomitant appellate court review on the other hand; and, (2) the exclusive legislative assignment of citizen- ship status discrimination jurisdiction to DOJ as distinct from the vesting in EEOC of age and religious discrimination. As compo- nents of a comprehensive regimen intended to prohibit discrimina- tion in the workplace, a determination with respect to any one such cause of action cannot be understood to compel or necessarily implicate an identical result as to any other such case.

The unique- ness of each such cause of action even where arising out of iden- tical facts, as illustrated by the statutory bar against overlap be- tween § 1324b national origin claims and Title VII national origin claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(b)(2), was addressed early in § 1324b juris- prudence, which also rejected the notion that § 1324b citizenship status discrimination findings were dependent upon national origin discrimination determinations. See e.g., Martinez v. Marcel Watch Corporation, 1 OCAHO 143, at 1000–01, available in 1990 WL 512127, at *10 (1990); Romo v. Todd Corporation, 1 OCAHO 25, at 122–125, available in 1988 WL 409425 at *5–6 (1988), affirmed sub. nom, United States v. Todd Corp., 900 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 Notwithstanding rejection of Respondent’s suggestion that I am bound by the opinion and order of the district court, I recognize that it was Complainant who first filed in this docket selected pleadings from the other case.

I also acknowledge Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effectively obliges the parties to advise the forum of significant events in related proceedings. 1 Citations to OCAHO precedent refer to the volume and consecutive reprint number assigned to decisions and orders. Pinpoint citations to precedents in Volumes 1 and 2, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS UNDER EMPLOYER SANCTIONS AND UN- FAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, and Volumes 3 through 7, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS UNDER EMPLOYER SANCTIONS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOY- MENT PRACTICES AND CIVIL PENALTY DOCUMENT FRAUD LAW OF THE UNITED STATES are to specific pages, seriatim of the specific entire volume. Pinpoint citations to OCAHO precedents subsequent to Volume VII are to pages within the original issuances.

726 8 OCAHO 1047 I accept for informational filing only the copy of the Memo- randum Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2000 in Hammoudah v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Case No. 98 C 5050, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. I deny the motion to file a brief which addresses the impact of that action, and I reject the suggestion that disposi- tion by the district court of alleged national origin, age and reli- gious discrimination has either res judicata or estoppel effect upon a citizenship status discrimination claim arising out of the same putative facts. 28 C.F.R. § 68.9(e).

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered this 2nd day of March, 2000. Marvin H. Morse Administrative Law Judge 727