Kea v. Donahoe et al

Filing 71

ORDER Denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Patrick R. Donahoe. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
David C. Kea, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-12991

Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster
General of the United States,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action against his employer, the United
States Postal Service, alleging unlawful race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title
VII. Following the close of discovery, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In a thirty-nine page Opinion & Order issued on August 13, 2015, this Court granted that
motion in part and denied it in part. (Docket Entry No. 52). Specifically, the Court granted the
motion to the extent that it granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to: 1)
Plaintiff’s disparate-treatment race-discrimination claim based upon being placed on off-duty
status in 2010; and 2) Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims based on both race and
retaliation. This Court denied the motion in all other respects. As such, the following claims are
proceeding to trial: 1) Plaintiff’s disparate-treatment race-discrimination claim based upon the
vehicle restriction; and 2) Plaintiff’s retaliation claim based upon the vehicle restriction.
On August 27, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket Entry No.
56).
1

Motions for reconsideration in civil cases are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local
Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, which provides:
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court
will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which
the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have
been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.
See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration does not
afford a movant an opportunity to present the same issues that have been already ruled on by the
court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Nor does a motion for reconsideration
afford the movant an opportunity to make new arguments that could have been, but were not,
raised before the Court issued its ruling.
In order to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the Court has been misled and must also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case. Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met that burden.
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration asserts that, with respect to its August 13, 2015
Opinion & Order, this Court erred in two respects.
First, Defendant contends that this Court erred in concluding that Plaintiff may proceed
to trial on the two claims specified in the August 13, 2015 Opinion & Order because Plaintiff
failed to administratively exhaust those claims. This Court’s Opinion & Order did not address
the issue of whether or not Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies because the
Government did not raise that issue in its Motion for Summary Judgment. The two claims that
2

are proceeding to trial were discussed at length in the parties’ summary judgment briefs.
Defendant challenged those claims on several bases – but failure to exhaust administrative
remedies was not one of those challenges.
Second, Defendant’s motion asserts that this Court erred in concluding that the alleged
vehicle restriction could constitute an adverse action. That argument was already presented to
this Court in Defendant’s summary-judgment briefs and was rejected by this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: November 9, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
November 9, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Kelly Winslow for Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager Generalist

3