Opinion
No. 99 C 6450.
August 16, 2004
On June 4, 2004, I granted Defendant Illinois Department of Employment Security's (IDES) motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Lucille Rowels's Equal Pay Act claim. In short, I found that Rowels could not establish that the difference in her starting salary, as compared to four male counterparts, was based on sex, especially since IDES presented extensive and uncontroverted evidence that the difference in starting salaries was due to the candidates' previous work experience and existing market factors.
In response, Rowels has filed this motion for reconsideration. It is well settled that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate vehicles to advance arguments already rejected by the court or new legal theories not argued before the ruling. Schartle v. Motorola, Inc., No, 93 C 5508, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8587 at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 1994); In re Oil Spill by "Amoco Cadiz" Off Coast of France, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Yet, this is essentially what Rowels does here. The arguments asserted by Rowels in this motion are either repeats of arguments made in her Response to IDES's motion for summary judgment, which I have already ruled upon, or they are entirely new legal theories brought for the first time in this motion. Since these arguments are improperly brought here, I am denying Rowels's motion.
I would also deny Rowels's motion on the grounds that her newly presented arguments are woefully underdeveloped and, as such, are deemed waived. Moehring v. Allied Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 00 C 4234, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22367 at fn.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2001) (citing Spath v. Hayes Wheel Int'l-Ind. Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 397 (7th Cir. 2000). Rowels's arguments are presented in format that does not sufficiently disclose their content, factual basis, or connection to the record. While such shortcomings may be excused in many pro se cases, they will not be excused here since Rowels is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois.
For these reasons, Rowels's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.