Rawls v. State of Alabama Department of Human Resources
OPINION AND ORDER denying 63 Motion to Alter Judgment and granting 66 Motion to Strike, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/31/12. (scn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
It is ORDERED that plaintiff Carolyn Rawls’s motion
to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 63) is denied
and that defendant Alabama Human Resources Department’s
motion to strike (Doc. No. 66) is granted.
As to the motion to strike, plaintiff Carolyn Rawls
gives no persuasive reason why the affidavit of Tom
Sellers was not obtained during discovery other than
difficulty in finding correct contact information for
For that reason alone, the court would grant
the motion to strike and not consider the evidence.
Mays v. United States Postal Service, 122 F.3d 43, 46
(11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (noting that when “a party
attempts to introduce previously unsubmitted evidence on
a motion to reconsider, the court should not grant the
motion absent some showing that the evidence was not
available during the pendency of the motion”).
further notes that Sellers stopped working for defendant
Alabama Department of Human Resources sometime in 2007,
culminated in late 2008 and early 2009.
of contemporaneous knowledge diminishes the utility of
affidavit in an attempt to bolster her argument that a
white comparator was not punished, but the court grounded
its decision at the third-stage of the McDonnell Douglas
inquiry: Rawls failed to establish pretext.
As to the remainder of the arguments presented in the
motion to reconsider, the court finds that Rawls has
merely rehashed previously rejected contentions.
DONE, this the 31st day of May, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?