Wade v. Home Depot U S A Inc
Filing
41
RULING re 37 MOTION for Reconsideration re 33 Memorandum Ruling, 34 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Home Depot U S A Inc. and 38 MOTION to Expedite consideration of 37 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/7/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
CHARMINE WADE
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2388
VERSUS
*
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC. AKA
THE HOME DEPOT
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING
Pending before the Court are a Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 37] and Motion to
Expedite Consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 38] filed by Defendant The
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”). For the following reasons, Home Depot’s Motion to
Expedite is GRANTED, and its Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
On January 5, 2016, the Court issued a Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 33 & 34]
granting in part and denying in part Home Depot’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
denied the motion on Plaintiff Charmine Wade’s (“Wade”) claim of race discrimination based on
Home Depot’s failure to promote her to a head cashier position. The Court otherwise granted
Home Depot’s motion, dismissing all of Wade’s other claims.
On January 6, 2016, Home Depot filed the pending motions. Given the upcoming trial
date of February 2, 2016, the Court has granted the Motion for Expedited Consideration. Home
Depot further moves the Court for reconsideration of its Motion for Summary Judgment on
Wade’s remaining claim of race discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Home Depot argues that the Court applied the standard of
review for summary judgments when the case is set for a jury trial, rather than a bench trial.
Under the correct standard of review, Home Depot argues that the Court could draw certain
inferences based on the evidence which are not permitted if a case is set for jury trial. Finally,
Home Depot argues that, contrary to the Court’s Ruling, Wade was required to show that she
actually applied for the head cashier position because she could not meet the “futile gesture”
exception.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically recognize a motion for
reconsideration, federal courts generally treat such motions as being filed under Rule 54(b) for
interlocutory orders or under Rule 54(e) for final orders or judgment. In this case, the Court
finds that review is appropriate under Rule 54(b), which allows a district court to reconsider and
reverse its prior rulings on any interlocutory order “for any reason it deems sufficient.” Saqui v.
Pride Cent. Am., LLC, 595 F.3d 206, 210–11 (5th Cir. 2010).
First, Home Depot is correct that the Court mistakenly considered its summary judgment
in the context of a jury trial, rather than a bench trial. In Matter of Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394,
397 (5th Cir. 1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to “decide
definitively whether the differences between a jury and nonjury trial merit a difference in the
review . . . accord[ed] the two.” However, the Fifth Circuit declined to reach this issue because
that court had already “determined that a district court has somewhat greater discretion to
consider what weight it will accord the evidence in a bench trial than in a jury trial.” Id. The
Fifth Circuit explained:
“If . . . there are no issues of witness credibility, the court may conclude on the
basis of the affidavits, depositions, and stipulations before it, that there are no
genuine issues of material fact, even though decision may depend on inferences to
be drawn . . . Hearing and viewing the witnesses subject to cross-examination
would not aid the determination if there are neither issues of credibility nor
2
controversies with respect to the substance of the proposed testimony. The judge,
as trier of fact, is in a position to and ought to draw his inferences without resort
to the expense of trial.”
Id. at 397-98 (quoting Nunez v. Superior Oil Co., 572 F.2d 1119, 1124 (5th Cir. 1978) (italicized
text in Placid Oil; boldface text added by this Court)). Thus, following Nunez, the Placid Oil
court recognized “that it makes little sense to forbid the judge from drawing inferences from the
evidence submitted on summary judgment when that same judge will act as the trier of fact,
unless those inferences involve issues of witness credibility or disputed material facts.” 932
F.2d at 398.
Home Depot’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that the Court
treated this case as a jury trial and failed to apply the summary judgment case law applicable to
bench trials. However, Home Depot’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED to the extent that
it contends it is entitled to summary judgment based on this standard. The Court does think this
case is a close call, but it is a close call based in large part on the credibility of key witnesses.
Wade claims that Lebeouf misled her about the head cashier position while giving the white
employee, Olivia Pescatore (“Pescatore”), the correct information, and then, ultimately, awarding
the position to Pescatore. According to Home Depot, Lebeouf will testify that Wade never
approached him about the head cashier position awarded to Pescatore. This is the classic type of
credibility determination which should be considered at trial.
Finally, the Court has considered Home Depot’s additional argument that Wade has failed
to establish the futile gesture exception to her duty to apply for a position. Home Depot argues
that under Irons v. Aircraft Service Intern, Inc., 392 Fed. App’x. 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2010), an
employee can only avoid the duty to apply for a position if she can show that she “was deterred
3
by a known and consistently enforced policy of discrimination.” Id. (citation omitted). Home
Depot has correctly stated the case law in Irons, but its argument assumes that the “futile
gesture” is the only possible exception to an employee’s duty to apply for a promotion. The case
law previously cited by the Court provides otherwise. The Court stands by its previous finding
that, if an employer has affirmatively misled an employee about a position to prevent her from
applying, while providing accurate information to a candidate of another race, she has met her
prima facie burden of showing that she “sought” the position upon which her discrimination case
is based. Thus, to this extent, Home Depot’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, and this
case will proceed to bench trial.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 7th day of January, 2016.
4
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?