From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2013
Case No. 11-10493 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 11-10493

04-30-2013

Robert Scheick, Plaintiff, v. Tecumseh Public Schools, et al., Defendants.


Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds


ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[42]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Scheick's motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 19, 2013 opinion and order granting Defendants Tecumseh Public Schools and Professional Education Services Group, LLC's motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal and state age discrimination claims. (Dkt. 40.)

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a party may file a motion for reconsideration within fourteen days after a court issues an order to which the party objects. Although a court has the discretion to grant such a motion, it generally will not grant a motion for reconsideration that "merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication." E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). To persuade the court to grant the motion, the movant "must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . . have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Id.

The Court denies Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff has presented no new arguments to the Court. The Court further finds that, even if the "they just want someone younger" statement constituted direct evidence of age discrimination, which the Court still finds that it does not, because it requires too many inferences, the Court would not change its decision, for Defendants have presented legitimate reasons to not renew Plaintiff's contract. Plaintiff has not shown that these reasons were pretext for age discrimination. The Court fully addressed its reasoning in its March 19, 2013 opinion and does not state its reasoning again here.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

So ordered.

_____________

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 30, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Kim Grimes

Acting in the absence of Carol Hemeyer,

Case Manager to Judge Edmunds


Summaries of

Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2013
Case No. 11-10493 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)
Case details for

Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch.

Case Details

Full title:Robert Scheick, Plaintiff, v. Tecumseh Public Schools, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 30, 2013

Citations

Case No. 11-10493 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2013)