Breve v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
ORDER AND REASONS denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration of the court's December 18, 2017 Order and Reasons granting the defendant's motion for summary judgement. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/9/2018. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RITZ CARLTON HOTEL
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s Order and Reasons dated December 18, 2017, in which the
Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the
following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Claudette Breve was employed at the Ritz Carlton in New
Orleans from 2000 until she was terminated in 2012 for clocking
out early. Her co-worker, Ryan Turnage, was also terminated for
clocking out early. Following her termination, she sued the Ritz
Carlton in this Court under the Age Discrimination in Employment
plaintiff’s claims were subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.
The plaintiff did not pursue her claims in arbitration. Mr. Turnage
did not make a claim following his termination.
Sometime around May 2016, a lobby concierge position became
available. The hotel management allegedly reached out to Mr.
Turnage and encouraged him to apply, which he did. The Ritz offered
Mr. Turnage the position, but he turned it down. However, Mr.
available. On June 3, 2016, the Ritz Carlton posted the position
publically and opened it to all applicants. Ms. Breve applied on
June 27, 2016, and was notified on July 2, 2016 that the position
was no longer open and that the Ritz Carlton would not move forward
with her candidacy. In response, Ms. Breve filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on
September 16, 2016 against the defendant. She then filed this suit
on December 23, 2016, alleging that the defendant violated the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and the
Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LA. STAT. § 23:301, et seq.
Ms. Breve claimed that by failing to consider her application, the
defendant is retaliating against her for her prior discrimination
claim. She contends that Mr. Turnage was offered the position,
even though he was terminated for the same reason as Ms. Breve,
because he did not file a discrimination claim.
On December 5, 2017, the defendant moved for summary judgment,
which was set for disposition on December 20, 2017. Although Local
memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to
the noticed submission date, the plaintiff failed to file an
opposition, move for an extension, or otherwise notify the Court
that the motion was opposed. On December 18, 2017, six days after
the opposition was due, the Court granted the motion for summary
judgement and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. See
Order and Reasons dtd. 12/18/17.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides, “[a] motion
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment.” “A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend a judgment ‘serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party
to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.’” Merritt Hawkins & Assocs. v. Gresham, 861
F.3d 143, 157 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co.,
875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). It “calls into question the
correctness of a judgement.” In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d
571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, “[r]econsideration of a
judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th
Although motions for reconsideration are seldom granted, the
Court prefers to render a decision after consideration of all
parties’ arguments. But the plaintiff’s counsel fails to address
in her motion why reconsideration is appropriate here. She simply
states that she was admittedly attending to other matters in the
case and was supposedly ill when the opposition was due and the
days following (without written notice to the Court).
reconsideration, fails to rebut that the defendant is entitled to
summary judgment. In its December 18, 2017 Order and Reasons, the
Court held that Breve failed to establish a causal link between
consider her for the concierge position. The defendant submitted
evidence that there was no causal link because its employees
responsible for filling the position were not aware that Breve
applied. They only considered applications submitted by June 18th
opposition, she submits that initially the online application
reviewed, and then later stated that the position was closed.
However, when she checked the defendant’s website the same day, it
still listed the position as available. Plaintiff contends that
this creates a clear issue of material fact as to whether defendant
listed as open on one website. The mere fact that the defendant
did not update the position on all websites does not rebut the
applications. Further, it matters little if the defendant was still
actively accepting applications as long as they only reviewed
applications received before June 27th, when Breve applied. Breve
submits no evidence that the defendant may have been aware that
Breve applied, or even reviewed applications submitted after June
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider its December 18, 2017 Order and Reasons granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgement with prejudice is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 9, 2018
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
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?