federalism if federal courts failed to take into account that an adequate state forum for all relevant issues has clearly been demonstrated to be available prior to any proceedings on the merits in federal court.” Id. at 437, 102 S.Ct. 2515, citing Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 350, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975). Although Middlesex involved a somewhat different procedural posture than Judge Griffen’s case by virtue of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s sua sponte review of the issue and their amendment of the rules granting interlocutory review of constitutional challenges, Judge Griffen’s decision not to follow the proper procedure by which to challenge the Commission’s holding does not alter the analysis. See Alleghany Corp. v. McCartney, 896 F.2d 1138, 1143-44 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Like the Supreme Court in Middlesex, this
holding that state court judgment affirming an administrative decision did not bar a subsequent federal action for additional relief because of national policy that title vii remedies be available to supplement state remedies for employment discrimination holding that younger principles apply to an action for damages that relates to a pending state proceeding holding that a party cannot circumvent younger by choosing not to pursue state appellate remedies and by instead choosing to initiate an action in federal court holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review