Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-13-2002 Foster v. Crawford Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 1-1798 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Foster v. Crawford Co" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 119. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/119 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 01-1798 ___________ BEVERLY FOSTER, Appellant v. CRAWFORD & COMPANY, ELISE MAULDIN, and GEORGE SCHIFF ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court Judge: The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden. (D.C. Civil Action No. 98-CV-5454) ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 8, 2002 Before: MANSMANN, RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: February 13, 2002) ________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION ________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Beverly Foster filed this Title VII action against her former employer Crawford & Company and several Crawford & Company employees. After the individual defendants were dismissed, Crawford & Company moved for summary judgment. Crawford & Company argued that Foster's Title VII claim should be barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion because Foster raised a Title VII claim against Crawford & Company in a prior suit which was dismissed. The District Court granted Crawford & Company's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Foster's Title VII action was barred by claim preclusion, and dismissed Foster's complaint in its entirety. We have carefully considered Foster's arguments in this appeal. We hold that they lack merit. For the reasons substantially stated in Judge Hayden's thorough and well- reasoned opinion, we affirm the Judgment of the District Court. _____________________________ TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. /s/ Julio M. Fuentes Circuit Judge