Romero v. Tucson Unified School District

Filing 126

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant TUSD's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. 123 ). Signed by District Judge Angela M Martinez on 11/26/2024. (See attached Order for complete information.) (SCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Augustine F. Romero,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Tucson Unified School District,

13

No. CV-20-00507-TUC-AMM
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendant Tucson Unified School District’s

16

(“Defendant” or “TUSD”) Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiff Augustine F.

17

Romero did not respond. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion.

18

I.

Background

19

On September 24, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor

20

on Plaintiff’s Title VII1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 discrimination claims. (Doc. 118 at 15.)

21

However, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant

22

unlawfully retaliated against him because he publicly called the TUSD Governing Board

23

“racist.” (Id.)

24

On October 7, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 123.) Defendant raises three grounds for

26

reconsideration. (Id. at 4–9.) First, Defendant challenges the legal standard the Court

27

applied when it found that Plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation. (Id. at 4–

28
1

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

1

5.) Specifically, Defendant argues that the Court erroneously stated that Plaintiff’s burden

2

at summary judgment is “minimal” based on Coghlan v. American Seafoods Company, 413

3

F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2005). (Id.) Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff’s burden is no longer

4

the minimal ‘motivating factor’ standard; he must instead establish but-for causation” and,

5

therefore, “[t]he Court should reconsider whether Plaintiff has met this heightened

6

standard.” (Id. at 5.)

7

Second, Defendant urges the Court to reconsider its finding that Plaintiff established

8

a triable issue regarding the causal connection between his protected activity and the

9

alleged retaliation. (Id. at 5–7.) Defendant argues that the Court should not have relied on

10

facts that predate Plaintiff’s media comment. (Id.)

11

Third, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff established a triable issue as to whether his

12

low interview scores were a pretext for retaliation. (Id. at 7.) Defendant again asserts that

13

the Court should not have relied on events that occurred before Plaintiff called the

14

Governing Board “racist.” (Id.) It further argues that Plaintiff did not demonstrate the hiring

15

process was unfair, Dr. Trujillo’s involvement in the hiring process was inappropriate, or

16

Plaintiff’s low scores were unwarranted. (Id. at 8.)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

II.

Standard of Review
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask a court to reconsider its judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e). However, courts will only grant a motion for reconsideration in rare circumstances.
Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration
is appropriate if the district court 1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration need not be granted
if it asks the district court merely “to rethink what the court had already thought through—
rightly or wrongly.” Defs. of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v.
Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Likewise, a motion for
reconsideration is not a means to raise arguments that could have been raised in earlier
proceedings, Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), nor a
-2-

1

means to reargue the same matter, Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc.,

2

215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

3

insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Fuentes v. Planet Fitness, No. CV-21-00818-PHX-

4

DLR, 2023 WL 6295013, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 27, 2023) (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels

5

Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988)).

6

III.

Analysis

7

The Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. None of the reasons

8

that Defendant raises justify reconsidering the Court’s finding that there is a genuine

9

dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff.

10

First, the Court applied the correct law. Defendant argues that the Supreme Court

11

holdings in University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 360,

12

364 (2013) and Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned

13

Media, 589 U.S. 327, 332–33 (2020) eliminated the “minimal” burden at summary

14

judgment for claims that an employer unlawfully retaliated against an employee. (Doc. 123

15

at 4–5.) The Court disagrees.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In Nassar and Comcast, the Supreme Court held a plaintiff must show his protected
activity was the but-for cause of his employer’s actions in order to establish a prima facie
case of retaliation. Nassar, 570 U.S. at 360; Comcast Corp., 589 U.S. at 332–33. However,
Coghlan is still good law. The Ninth Circuit has continued to say the burden to show butfor cause at summary judgment is “minimal.” See, e.g., Opara v. Yellen, 57 F.4th 709, 722
(9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir.
2002)) (“[U]nder the McDonnell Douglas framework, ‘[t]he requisite degree of proof
necessary to establish a prima facie case . . . on summary judgment is minimal and does
not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.’”); see also Nessel v.
JDM Golf LLC, No. CV-23-00095-PHX-DMF, 2024 WL 3494378, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 22,
2024) (applying the “minimal” burden at summary judgment to a prima facie case of Title
VII retaliation).
This is the standard the Court applied when it denied summary judgment. (Doc. 118
at 9, 11–15.) In other words, the Court found that Plaintiff met his minimal burden to show
-3-

1

there is a triable issue as to whether Defendant would have hired him but for his comments

2

about the Governing Board. (Id. at 12–15.)

3

Second, Defendant does not cite any authority that precludes the Court from

4

considering relevant facts that occurred prior to Plaintiff’s protected activity. “At the prima

5

facie stage of a retaliation case, the causal link element is construed broadly so that a

6

plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action

7

are not completely unrelated.” Knorr v. Daisy Mountain Fire Dist., No. CV-22-00608-

8

PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 4228611, at *25 (D. Ariz. Sept. 18, 2024) (quoting Poland v.

9

Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga.,

10

590 U.S. 644, 656 (2020) (“So long as the plaintiff’s [protected activity] was one but-for

11

cause of [the adverse] decision, that is enough to trigger the law.”). Furthermore, the

12

temporal proximity “inquiry is fact-specific and depends on both the degree of proximity

13

and what, if any, other evidence supports an inference of pretext.” Nessel, 2024 WL

14

3494378, at *5 (quoting Kama v. Mayorkas, No. 23-55106, 2024 WL 3449142, at *4 (9th

15

Cir. July 18, 2024)). Even “[a]t the pretext stage, the plaintiff’s burden remains low, and

16

‘very little[] evidence is necessary to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding an employer’s

17

motive.’” Id. (quoting Opara, 57 F.4th at 723–24).
Here, the facts the Court examined—including (1) Dr. Trujillo’s decision not to

18
19
20
21
22
23

renew Plaintiff’s stipend based on his belief that the Governing Board would not approve
it, (2) Hicks’s public criticism of Dr. Trujillo’s decision to recommend renewing Plaintiff’s
contract, and (3) Dr. Trujillo’s comment to Ms. Rico-Uhrig stating that he would not allow
Plaintiff’s name to reach the Governing Board as a candidate for other positions—are all
relevant to the context in which Defendant decided not to hire Plaintiff.
Finally, Defendant’s remaining reasons for reconsideration repeat the arguments it

24
25
26
27
28

made at summary judgment. The Court already considered these arguments and assessed
the facts. Reconsideration is not warranted simply because Defendant disagrees with the
Court’s conclusion.
///
///
-4-

1

IV.

Conclusion

2

For the foregoing reasons,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant TUSD’s Motion for Reconsideration is

4
5

DENIED. (Doc. 123.)
Dated this 26th day of November, 2024.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-