Title VII retaliation, 42 USC § 2000; Jurisdiction over a defendant’s judicial estoppel appellate claim; Jurisdiction as to the district court’s reinstatement order; 28 USC § 1292(a)(1); Whether the reinstatement order was proper as a matter of law

In this Title VII retaliation case, the court held that a party’s judicial estoppel appellate claim cannot create an exception to the “final order” jurisdictional rule. It also held “that judicial estoppel need not be applied to claims of equitable relief not disclosed in prior bankruptcy proceedings” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff-McGruder’s reinstatement. She sued defendant-Metro Nashville after it fired her, alleging it did so in retaliation for her investigation into instances of racial discrimination at one of its schools. After she filed this case, she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, failing to disclose her retaliation suit. A jury awarded her $260,000. and the district court ordered Metro Nashville to reinstate her to her prior position. After it filed its notice of appeal, Metro Nashville argued that the district court should invoke judicial estoppel and dismiss the case with prejudice based on “manifest injustice” and “abuse of the judicial process.” The district court ruled that it could not exercise jurisdiction over the judicial estoppel claim as it had already been divested of jurisdiction. The court first considered whether it could “exercise jurisdiction over Metro Nashville’s judicial estoppel arguments as they relate to non-final orders from the district court.” It determined that “Metro Nashville’s appeal of the reinstatement order falls within one of the few exceptions to” the rule that the court only has jurisdiction over final orders. But that was the only issue over which it had jurisdiction because the other claims Metro Nashville asked it to judicially estop were “not final, appealable orders” before it. The court held that “a party’s judicial estoppel claim cannot create a previously unrecognized exception to the long-standing jurisdictional rule that generally appellate courts have authority to rule only on final orders from district courts.” As to the reinstatement order, the court concluded judicially “estopping McGruder’s reinstatement would not serve the goals of the doctrine.” It noted that such a claim would likely not have been relevant to the bankruptcy court in its disposition of her debts. It further found that the reinstatement order was “proper as a matter of law.” It rejected Metro Nashville’s argument that the order contradicted the factual record, finding no error. As to its assertion “that a district court abuses its discretion in ordering reinstatement where such reinstatement would entail displacement and where there is hostility between the parties[,]” the court noted that it has not established such a categorical rule and concluded that its precedent favored reinstatement here. It affirmed the reinstatement order and otherwise dismissed Metro Nashville’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.