Opinion
No. SA-03-CA-1174-RF.
June 19, 2006
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 62), filed June 1, 2006. The parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on May 11, 2006. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 62) should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Guillermo Martinez, a Mexican-American man, was discharged from the military in 1979, at which time he began his career as an aircraft mechanic. Plaintiff spent the first two years of his career as an aircraft mechanic with Swearingen Aviation. Plaintiff was also employed by Lear Siegler from 1986 until 1998, where he worked making modifications to T-37 and T-38 aircrafts. On September 14, 1998, Plaintiff voluntarily left Lear Siegler to go work for Defendant Boeing as an aircraft mechanic in the MD-10 program. In May 1999, Boeing transferred Plaintiff to the KC-135 program as an aircraft mechanic.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51), Exhibit B, Pl. Depo at p. 26.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51), Exhibit B, Pl. Depo at pp. 31, 36.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51), Exhibit B, Pl. Depo at pp. 37.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51) at p. 2.
Over the course of his employment with Boeing, Plaintiff applied for several promotions, none of which he received. In this case, Plaintiff complains about five positions in particular for which he was not selected. Plaintiff claims that he applied for the following job openings at Boeing: (1) Manufacturing Multi-Discipline Manager; (2) Back Shop Flight Manager, Level K; (3) Fabrication Manager, Level J; (4) Business and Planning Analyst 3; and (5) Structures Lead Man. Plaintiff believes he was not selected for any of these positions solely because of his national origin and not because of any deficiency in his qualifications. Plaintiff also states that he was subjected to racist jokes and racial epithets and other derogatory comments by management officials. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that management allowed offensive graffiti to remain in the restroom facilities. Plaintiff asserts these conditions constituted a hostile working environment.
In Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 5), Plaintiff pleaded the following causes of action: (1) deprivation of rights and privileges guaranteed to him by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying him compensation opportunities based upon his race and national origin, Mexican-American, and retaliating against him because he engaged in protected conduct and opposed conduct made unlawful by federal law; (3) violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant addressed each of these four claims in its Motion for Summary Judgment. In his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff only addressed the Title VII failure to promote and hostile work environment claims. Therefore, the Court treated Plaintiff's other claims as abandoned. As a result, the Court found that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's claims for (1) violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (retaliation), and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court addressed the failure to promote and hostile working environment claims.
On May 24, 2006, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims for (1) violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, (2) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (retaliation), and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. It was further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion was GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for failure to promote regarding the positions of: (1) Manufacturing Multi-Discipline Manager; (2) Back Shop Flight Control Manager, Level K; (3) Fabrication Manager, Level J; and (4) Business and Planning Analyst 3. The Court DENIED Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's failure to promote claim regarding the position of Lead Man and as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a mechanism by which a party may file a "motion to reconsider." Motions seeking reconsideration of the Court's ruling and filed within 10 days of the entry of summary judgment will, therefore, be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Because such motions are disfavored, a movant of a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider must show: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Such motions grounded upon newly discovered evidence will not be granted unless the movant shows: (1) the facts discovered are of such a nature that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged are actually newly discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely cumulative or impeaching. A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. The district court has "considerable discretion" in deciding whether to grant a rule 59(e) motion. Hostile Work Environment
See FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e); see also Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
In re Benjamin Moore Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002); Burton v. Buckner Children and Family Services, Inc., WL 22169771, *1-*2 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 18, 2003).
See Infusion Resources, Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-697 (5th Cir. 2003); English v. Mattson, 214 F.2d 406, 409 (5th Cir. 1954).
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
Lavespere v. Niagara Machine Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990).
Defendant brings this Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's denial of summary judgment as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim to correct a clear error of law. The Court believed that the EEOC's favorable determination letter was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact such that the grant of summary judgment would be precluded. In its Order, the Court stated "[i]n light of the EEOC findings, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact as to at least one or more elements of his hostile work environment claim." The Court did not rely on any other summary judgment evidence in finding that there was a genuine issue for trial. In its Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant notes, and Plaintiff did not object, that many district courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that a "favorable" EEOC determination letter alone does not, as a matter of law, create a fact issue that precludes summary judgment.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) at p. 14.
See Hall v. Principi, No. Civ. A. L-03-CV-90, 2006 WL 870190, at *6 (S.D.Tex. Apr. 3, 2006) (holding that a "favorable" EEOC letter of determination does not create a fact issue precluding summary judgment); Sparks v. Chertoff, No. Civ. A. L-04-112, 2006 WL 870358, at *1 (S.D.Tex. March 31, 2006) (same); Chavarria v. Despachos del Notre, Inc., 390 F.Supp.2d 591, 598 n. 9 (S.D.Tex. 2005) (same); Williams v. Aviall Services, Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:01-CV-2151, 2003 WL 21018567, at *5 (N.D.Tex. 1999) (same); accord Simms v. Oklahoma, 165 F.3d 1321, 1331 (10th Cir. 1999); Columbia Plaza Med. Ctr. v. Szurek, 101 S.W.3d 161, 169 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, writ denied).
In Wright v. Columbia Women Children's Hospital, Plaintiff brought a suit for age discrimination. Plaintiff argued to the Fifth Circuit that summary judgment should have been denied based on the determination letter issued by the EEOC. The EEOC determination letter stated:
34 Fed.Appx. 151 (5th Cir. 2002).
The successful applicant did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position while the Charging Party did meet the qualifications. The evidence shows that the reasons given by the Respondent for not selecting the Charging Party were subjective and Respondent gave no evidence to support them. The evidence shows that Respondent did not interview any of the female applicants . . . Based on the evidence, there is reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Party was discriminated against because of her age in violation of the [ADEA] and her sex in violation of [Title VII].
Id. at *3.
The Fifth Circuit held that "[t]his determination letter contains only the broadest legal and factual conclusions, does not identify the qualifications taken into account by the EEOC, and does not outline the nature of the investigation conducted . . . The EEOC's conclusory opinion, unsupported by any evidence in the summary judgment record, is not sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment."
Id. at *4.
This case is analogous to Wright. Here, the EEOC determination letter states:
The evidence obtained during the investigation shows a contract employee made frequent ethnic slurs to Charging Party and other Hispanic employees. The evidence further shows Charging Party first complained about this contract employee's use of ethnic slurs in July 2000; however, appropriate, corrective action was not taken.
Evidence also shows subsequent to his complaint, Charging Party and other Hispanic co-workers made additional complaints regarding the contract employee's harassing comments. There is reasonable cause to conclude the nature and frequency of the discriminatory comments, coupled with Respondent's failure to take prompt, corrective action regarding this conduct created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51); Exhibit G.
Like the EEOC determination letter in Wright, this letter contains broad legal and factual conclusions and is not supported by any evidence in the summary judgment record. Mr. Martinez testified at his deposition that Dennis Moore was the only person at Boeing who made racially derogatory slurs to him. As the Court noted in its Order, the single incident with Mr. Moore did not cause Plaintiff to miss work, affect his performance, pay benefits or job responsibilities, or cause him to seek medical treatment. The EEOC's "determination" that there was not appropriate, corrective action taken in response to Mr. Moore's behavior is also unsupported by the summary judgment record. Mr. Martinez testified in his deposition that he was aware that Mr. Moore received a verbal reprimand for the incident concerning Plaintiff, and that Mr. Moore was terminated approximately five months later for getting into a physical altercation with another employee. As a result of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion for Reconsideration should be GRANTED as to the hostile work environment claim. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim should be GRANTED.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51); Exhibit A, pp. 109-111.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) at p. 13.
Pl. Response to Def. MSJ (Docket No. 51); Exhibit A, p. 114.
Lead Man Position
In its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny summary judgment as to Plaintiff's failure to promote — lead man position claim, Defendant does not claim that there is new evidence to be considered, that there has been a clear error of law, or that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Defendant simply disagrees with the Court's application of the law to the facts. Defendant's disagreement with the Court's ruling that Plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was "clearly more qualified" than Mr. Rhea for the Lead Man position does not constitute sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's Order denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's failure to promote — lead man position claim should be DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 62) should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, and consequently Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 43) should be GRANTED as to the hostile work environment claim. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as to the failure to promote claim.
It is so ORDERED.