Ballard v. Ameren Illinois Company

Filing 22

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. See written order. Entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 3/11/25. (WG)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 11 March, 2025 10:07:12 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
KIMBERLY BALLARD
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01185-JEH

AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY,
Defendant.
Order
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (D. 15). 1 For
the reasons set forth, infra, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I
On May 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Ameren Illinois
Company (“Ameren”). (D. 1). On July 29, 2024, Ameren filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Plaintiff’s Complaint, (D. 6), and the Plaintiff filed a Response on August 12,
2024. (D. 7). On January 7, 2025, the Court issued its Order and Opinion
GRANTING the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and entered
judgment in favor of the Defendant. (D. 9 & 10). On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Reconsideration, (D. 15), and the Defendant filed its Response on
February 18, 2025. (D. 18). On February 24, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Motion for Reconsideration and on March 10, 2025, the Court GRANTED the
Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration
(D. 21 & 19). With the matter now fully briefed, the Court reaches its decision as
to the Plaintiff’s original Motion for Reconsideration still pending before it. (D. 15).

1 Citations to the electronic docket are abbreviated as “D. ___ at ECF p. ___.”

1

II
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs the “[a]ltering or [a]mending
[of] a judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59. Rule 59 reads, “[a] motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 59(e). In this case, the Court entered judgment on January 7, 2025, in favor
of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration on
February 3, 2025. (D. 10 & 15). In considering the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, the Court will continue its analysis by applying the Rule 59
standard. “To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, the movant
must present either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law
or fact.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). “Because the
standards for reconsideration are exacting, the Seventh Circuit has stressed that
appropriate issues for reconsideration ‘rarely arise and the motion to reconsider
should be equally rare.’” Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 245 F. Supp.
3d 1036, 1044 (C.D. Ill. 2017) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)).
A
Plaintiff originally filed her Complaint against the Defendant alleging three
counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (D. 1). In
response, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. (D. 6). In the
Court’s January 7, 2025, Order granting the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the
Court agreed with the Defendant and determined that the Plaintiff’s claim was
time-barred. (D. 9 at ECF p. 10). Therefore, the Court entered judgment in favor of
the Defendant and dismissed the action with prejudice. (D. 9 at ECF p. 11). The
Court observed, “To be timely, the administrative discrimination charge must be
filed within 300 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, the last of which
2

was Plaintiff’s termination on February 26, 2018.” (D. 9 at ECF p. 8) (emphasis
added). The Court found that Plaintiff’s discrimination charge was not filed until
August 31, 2019, two-hundred and fifty-one days after the three-hundred-day
window to file it had already expired. (D. 9 at ECF p. 10). While the Plaintiff
presented some evidence that her complainant information sheet (“CIS”) may
have been filed with the respective agency within the period allowed, the Court
specifically found that her CIS does not qualify as a charge. (D. 9 at ECF p. 9) (citing
Carlson v. Christian Bros. Servs., 840 F.3d 466, 467 (7th Cir. 2016)). “A charge is the
administrative equivalent of a complaint filed in court; a CIS is not unless it asks for
relief and thus functions as a charge.” Id. (citing Carlson, 840 F.3d at 467) (emphasis
added). On this point, the Court found that Plaintiff’s CIS sheet “does not describe
what relief she was seeking” and did not include “space on the form that called
for her to provide that information.” Id. For that reason, the Court found the CIS
form did not “constitute a charge of discrimination—rather it is ‘just a pre-charge
screening form.’” Id. (citing Carlson, 840 F.3d at 467).
In the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, she concedes that the charge
was not filed until August 31, 2019, consistent with the Court’s previous order and
reasoning. (D. 15 at ECF p. 2). She contends, however, that her CIS filing should
constitute a charge because it “implicitly requested relief,” an argument
previously rejected by the Court, and despite the CIS form stating at the top, “THIS
IS NOT A CHARGE.” (D. 15 at ECF p. 8 & D. 15-1 at ECF p. 2). In her Motion,
Plaintiff attempts to relitigate facts already ruled on and cites several cases not
previously raised in support of her proposition that the CIS filing constitutes a
charge, and, therefore, the Court should revisit its decision. However, it is well
established that “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing
previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard
during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v.
3

CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996). The Plaintiff does not allege
newly discovered evidence or that the Court committed a manifest error of law or
fact as necessary for her to prevail on the Motion for Reconsideration. See Oto, 224
F.3d at 606. A “manifest error” is “not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration reveals little more than her
disappointment in the Court’s January 7, 2025 ruling. It does not reveal manifest
error. Thus, reconsideration is not warranted.
III
For the reasons set forth, supra, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(D. 15) is DENIED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to maintain this case’s status
as CLOSED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on March 11, 2025.
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4