Opinion
Civil Action No. 97-4232-CM.
July 11, 2000.
David O. Alegria, McCullough, Wareheim LaBunker, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Juanita M. Foster, plaintiff.
William C. Martucci and Eric W. Smith, Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO; J. Nick Badegerow and Daniel B. Boatright, Spencer, Fane, Britt Browne, Overland Park, KS; Patrick W. McGovern, Alliedsignal, Inc., Morristown, NJ, for Allied Signal Inc., defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 85). Specifically, plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the court's order granting summary judgment to defendant. In that order, the court found a factual dispute regarding whether plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation, but that, in any event, summary judgment was appropriate because plaintiff had failed to bring forth any evidence of pretext.
I. Standards
A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995). Such a motion does not permit a losing party to rehash arguments previously addressed or to present new legal theories or facts that could have been raised earlier. See Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996).
II. Discussion
Plaintiff's memorandum in support of her motion to alter or amend judgment is essentially a recitation of plaintiff's argument set forth in her opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff takes issue with the court's rationale upon which it granted summary judgment, setting forth her interpretation of the relevant caselaw. In addition, plaintiff states that the court "decided to ignore" evidence of an alleged telephone log showing that plaintiff called in her absences.
Foremost, the court did not "ignore" evidence of the alleged telephone log. Rather, the court granted defendant's motion to strike the affidavit of plaintiff's counsel, to which the alleged telephone log was attached as an exhibit. As set forth more fully in the court's summary judgment opinion, the affidavit and accompanying exhibit were fraught with admissibility problems. Accordingly, the court struck the affidavit and the alleged telephone log. The evidence being no longer a part of the record, the court did not consider the telephone log in rendering its decision.
With respect to plaintiff's claim that the court erred in its rationale, plaintiff has failed to establish the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff simply disagrees with the court's interpretation of the relevant caselaw and its application to the facts of this case. As such, the court will not allow plaintiff an opportunity to relitigate old issues without a showing of clear error, a burden which plaintiff has clearly failed to meet.
Interestingly, as noted in plaintiff's reply, five days after plaintiff filed her motion to alter or amend judgment, the Supreme Court issued Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000). Plaintiff argues that the holding in Reeves requires that her case be submitted to a jury. In Reeves, the court held that a plaintiff who makes out a prima facie case of employment discrimination and raises a jury question of pretext may generally withstand judgment as a matter of law. The court cautioned, however, that such a showing by plaintiff will not always be adequate.
In the case at hand, the court did not hold that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination. Further, plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to terminate plaintiff's employment. Reeves is, therefore, inapplicable to this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 85) is denied.