MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETRESE B. TUCKER, District Judge

Presently before this Court is Plaintiff Joseph D. Hess's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Grant of Summary Judgment on his Retaliation Claim (Doc. 23). For the reasons set forth below, upon consideration of Plaintiff Hess's Motion and Defendants' Response (Doc. 24), this Court will deny Plaintiff Hess's Motion for Reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Manor Care Health Services operates as a comprehensive skilled-care nursing home in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Joseph Hess began working at Manor Care's Lansdale facility in August of 1998 as a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") Charge Nurse. Hess alleges that he was the victim of harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation beginning in 1999 when Defendants Moran and Maksimchuk were promoted to supervisory roles. Hess was terminated in January 2000 after an incident involving fraudulent time cards, but was later reinstated. Defendants claim that on Hess's first day back at Manor Care after being reinstated, Defendant Moran confronted him about something he had done incorrectly. Hess replied by stating that, "the harassment obviously still continues." Def. Summary Judgment Brief at 19. Manor Care then allegedly decided, with the agreement of the EEOC investigator, that relocating Mr. Hess to an available position at their Allentown facility would be the best solution. Hess subsequently never showed up at the Allentown facility and was deemed by Manor Care to have voluntarily abandoned his position.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(g) permit a party to move for a reconsideration of any ruling within ten days of the entry of judgment, order, or decree. "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco. Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). A party filing a motion to reconsider must rely on at least one of the following grounds: (1) the availability of new evidence that was not previously available; (2) an intervening change in the controlling law; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Reich v. Compton, 834 F. Supp. 753, 755 (E.D. Pa. 1993). In this case, Plaintiff Hess is relying upon the third ground for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Hess urges the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and Order dated November 4, 2003, granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims asserted by Hess. Specifically, Hess moves for reconsideration of this Court's finding that he failed to show that his employer took an adverse employment action against him in his retaliation claim. Plaintiff Hess states that significant facts were properly presented but overlooked by the Court in rendering its decision.

In this motion for reconsideration, Hess attempts to introduce a new legal argument to bolster his retaliation claim. Hess now claims that the protected activity engaged in was his EEOC complaint dated January 12, 2000, not his report of discrimination to his superiors in 1999. In addition, Hess claims that the adverse employment action in his retaliation claim was his February 2000 termination, not his termination in January of 2000. Hess asserts that he left Manor Care in February 2000, immediately after he was reinstated. Hess claims that his February departure was the result of continued harassment upon his return to work, and he was forced to continue to work for his harasser. According to Hess, he was told that if he agreed, he would be transferred to Defendants' Manor Care facility in Allentown. Hess did not agree, showed up for his shift at the Lansdale facility and was told to get out of the building. Hess states that he was told by the EEOC investigator that he did not have to agree to the transfer, and Defendants could not force him to acquiesce. Hess argues that it should be left to the discretion of the factfinder to determine if the amount of time between his protected activity (the January EEOC complaint) and his final separation from Manor Care in February 2000 is enough to establish the required causation.

The Plaintiff must show that there were facts or legal issues properly presented but overlooked by the court in its decision. Blue Mt. Mushroom Co. v. Monterey Mushroom, 246 F. Supp.2d 394, 398-99 (E.D. Pa. 2002). The only problem with Hess's argument is that this set of facts was never alleged in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint nor were they argued in the Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This filing is the first time that these facts have been brought to the Court's attention. In this Court's opinion on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the facts as enumerated in the Amended Complaint and the parties' briefs were those considered.

"A motion for reconsideration may not be used to present a new legal theory for the first time or to raise new arguments that could have been made in support of the original motion." McNeal v. Maritank Philadelphia, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 895, *13 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 1999); see also Vaidya v. Xerox Corp., 1997 WL 732464, *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 1997) ("A motion for reconsideration may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the court."); Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 97 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (ruling that parties should not make additional arguments which should have been made before judgment). Plaintiff Hess failed to raise this argument in his memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Furthermore, Defendants noted in their brief in support of their summary judgment motion that, "Mr. Hess has never challenged the permanent separation of his employment with Manor Care, either by way of a charge or in his Amended Complaint. This is not an issue in this case and accordingly is not addressed in this Motion." Defs' Br. at 3. This statement by the Defendants opened the door for Hess to make the argument wrongly asserted here. Raising this argument post-judgment is inappropriate and will not be allowed. Therefore the Plaintiff Hess's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons and analysis, this Court will deny Plaintiff Hess's Motion for Reconsideration of his Retaliation Claim.

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of February, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff Joseph D. Hess's Motion for Reconsideration of Grant of Summary Judgment on his Retaliation Claim (Doc. 23) and Defendants' Response (Doc. 24), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff Hess's Motion is DENIED.