Opinion
No. CV-04-1559-PHX-DGC.
May 11, 2006
ORDER
Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court's May 3, 2006 order denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Doc. #51; see Doc. #49. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
In its May 3 order, the Court noted that Defendants did not address Plaintiff's argument that her reassignment to less desirable shifts constitutes a tangible employment action. Doc. #49 at 3 n. 2. Defendants draw the Court's attention to the section of their reply brief that addressed whether Defendants acted reasonably in investigating Plaintiff's complaint of harassment. Doc. #51 at 1 (citing Doc. #48 at 7). Defendants point out that they argued that Plaintiff was compensated more in the pay period following her complaint than in previous pay periods. Id. (citing Docs. ##48 at 7, 44 Ex. L).
Defendants, however, made this argument to show that Plaintiff's reassignment was a reasonable response to her complaint of harassment; Defendants never argued that the reassignment does not constitute a tangible employment action. Rather, Defendants focused on Plaintiff's termination, contending that it was not a tangible employment action within the meaning of Faragher and Ellerth. See Docs. ##43 at 7, 48 at 4.
Moreover, the evidence, construed in Plaintiff's favor, shows that Plaintiff was reassigned to less desirable shifts. Plaintiff's paycheck dated October 25, 2002 — the date she was reassigned — shows that she earned about $8.52 per hour. Doc. #44 Ex. L. Plaintiff's next (and last) paycheck shows that she earned about $5.69 per hour. Id. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. #51) is denied.