claims against her employer for violations of the Equal Pay Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act were barred by the doctrine of res judicata when the plaintiff had previously brought suit against the employer for unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA). The Court finds that Mr. Viciedo’s claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of the prior state court action. The Court recognizes that the Tenth Circuit in Clark adopted a rule that claims stemming from the plaintiffs employment relationship with the defendant are claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence. Clark, 953 F.2d at 1239. Even the Tenth Circuit, however, has narrowed the scope of that rule. See Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1202 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, it appeal's that no equivalent
holding that the plaintiffs claims were barred by res judicata when the federal courts judgment was finalized by denial of his petition for certiorari holding additional parties in second suit do not prevent the application of res judicata based on the first suit holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action holding that the plaintiffs due process claims were completely barred by res judicata because the underlying factual predicate for each of these claims  is substantially identical to the allegations presented in state court holding that when claims regarding the employment relationship arise after the plaintiffs first case is initiated the second case is not barred by res judicata