must be dismissed. Therefore: IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be and it is hereby GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the plaintiffs suit with prejudice. 1 . The Commission did not find cause for termination from employment altogether, and thus did not reverse the referee in tota as the defendants sought. 2 . 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994). The plaintiff also alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but later dismissed those claims. 3 . 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 (West 1994). 4 . Welch v. Johnson, 907 F.2d 714, 719 (7th Cir. 1990). 5 . 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). 6 . Kremer, 456 U.S. at 481-82, 102 S.Ct. at 1896-97. 7 . La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:4231(2) (West 1991). 8 . Welch v. Johnson. 907 F.2d 714 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Although it is unnecessary to address
holding that the fact that the plaintiff did not avail herself of the opportunity to litigate her discrimination claims before the civil service commission and on administrative review in the state courts did not insulate her claims in federal court from the effects of res judicata holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts