United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the
Court's Order and Reasons dated December 18, 2017, in
which the Court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is
Breve was employed at the Ritz Carlton in New Orleans from
2000 until she was terminated in 2012 for clocking out early.
Her co-worker, Ryan Turnage, was also terminated for clocking
out early. Following her termination, she sued the Ritz
Carlton in this Court under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, alleging discrimination. Judge Brown
dismissed the case without prejudice on August 29, 2013 on
the basis that the plaintiff's claims were subject to the
Federal Arbitration Act. The plaintiff did not pursue her
claims in arbitration. Mr. Turnage did not make a claim
following his termination.
around May 2016, a lobby concierge position became available.
The hotel management allegedly reached out to Mr. Turnage and
encouraged him to apply, which he did. The Ritz offered Mr.
Turnage the position, but he turned it down. However, Mr.
Turnage called Breve and notified her that the position was
available. On June 3, 2016, the Ritz Carlton posted the
position publically and opened it to all applicants. Ms.
Breve applied on June 27, 2016, and was notified on July 2,
2016 that the position was no longer open and that the Ritz
Carlton would not move forward with her candidacy. In
response, Ms. Breve filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on September 16, 2016
against the defendant. She then filed this suit on December
23, 2016, alleging that the defendant violated the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et
seq. and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, La.
Stat. § 23:301, et seq. Ms. Breve claimed that by
failing to consider her application, the defendant is
retaliating against her for her prior discrimination claim.
She contends that Mr. Turnage was offered the position, even
though he was terminated for the same reason as Ms. Breve,
because he did not file a discrimination claim.
December 5, 2017, the defendant moved for summary judgment,
which was set for disposition on December 20, 2017. Although
Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires
that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days
prior to the noticed submission date, the plaintiff failed to
file an opposition, move for an extension, or otherwise
notify the Court that the motion was opposed. On December 18,
2017, six days after the opposition was due, the Court
granted the motion for summary judgement and dismissed the
plaintiff's claim with prejudice. See Order and
Reasons dtd. 12/18/17.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides, “[a] motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment.” “A Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend a judgment ‘serve[s] the
narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.'” Merritt Hawkins & Assocs. v.
Gresham, 861 F.3d 143, 157 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473
(5th Cir. 1989)). It “calls into question the
correctness of a judgement.” In re Transtexas Gas
Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
“[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th
motions for reconsideration are seldom granted, the Court
prefers to render a decision after consideration of all
parties' arguments. But the plaintiff's counsel fails
to address in her motion why reconsideration is appropriate
here. She simply states that she was admittedly attending to
other matters in the case and was supposedly ill when the
opposition was due and the days following (without written
notice to the Court).
the plaintiff's opposition to the defendant's motion
for summary judgement, included in her motion for
reconsideration, fails to rebut that the defendant is
entitled to summary judgment. In its December 18, 2017 Order
and Reasons, the Court held that Breve failed to establish a
causal link between her discrimination complaint and the
defendant's failure to consider her for the concierge
position. The defendant submitted evidence that there was no
causal link because its employees responsible for filling the
position were not aware that Breve applied. They only
considered applications submitted by June 18thand
Breve did not submit hers until June 27th. In
Breve's opposition, she submits that initially the online
application portal stated that her application was received
but not yet reviewed, and then later stated that the position
was closed. However, when she checked the defendant's
website the same day, it still listed the position as
available. Plaintiff contends that this creates a clear issue
of material fact as to whether defendant reviewed
applications after June 18th, contrary to the
sworn affidavits the defendant submitted, because the
position was listed as open on one website. The mere fact
that the defendant did not update the position on all
websites does not rebut the defendant's representation of
when it stopped reviewing new applications. Further, it
matters little if the defendant was still actively accepting
applications as long as they only reviewed applications
received before June 27th, when Breve applied.
Breve submits no evidence that the defendant may have been
aware that Breve applied, or even reviewed applications
submitted after June 18th.
IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider
its December 18, 2017 Order and Reasons granting the
defendant's motion ...