Peeples et al v. Detroit, City of et al
OPINION AND ORDER Denying 142 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Erick Peeples, et al.,
Civil Action No. 13-13858
City of Detroit, et al.,
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge
OPINION & ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER AND AMEND (ECF NO. 142)
On February 4, 2019, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s postremand summary judgment motion. The matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiffs’
motion asking the Court to alter or amend the judgment. The motion has been fully briefed by
the parties and the Court concludes that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. The
Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided without oral argument. Local Rule
7.1(f)(2). As explained below, the Court shall DENY the motion for lack of merit.
Plaintiffs are eleven firefighters who were laid off by the City of Detroit during a
reduction in force. Plaintiffs were recalled to work 80 days after being laid off and their labor
union successfully grieved their layoffs, securing a settlement under which the City agreed to a
“make-whole” award of backpay for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs then filed this action, asserting
Title VII race discrimination claims against the City and their Union.
This Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of both the City and the
Union. As to the City’s motion, this Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to present direct
evidence to support their claims and that they also failed to establish a prima facie case under the
circumstantial evidence approach, which includes a heightened burden in this reduction-in-force
case. (ECF No. 136 at 2). As to the Union’s motion, this Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the union because Plaintiffs cannot establish that the Union breached its duty of fair
representation to Plaintiffs which, under then-existing Sixth Circuit case law, they must do in
order to proceed with a Title VII claim against the Union. The Court also granted the Union’s
motion “because Plaintiffs have been reinstated and made whole, and other types of damages
claimed by Plaintiffs are unavailable as to the Union.” (Id. at 2).
Plaintiffs appealed this Court’s rulings. The EEOC appeared in the action and filed an
amicus curiae brief, urging the Sixth Circuit to change its position and rule that the standards
governing a duty of fair representation claim do not govern Title VII discrimination claims
against a union.
In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s summary judgment ruling
in favor of the City. Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2018). The Sixth Circuit
agreed that Plaintiffs had not produced any direct evidence in support of their claims. Id. at 63334. The appellate court also agreed that Plaintiffs had not met their burden under the
circumstantial-evidence approach. Id. at 634-36. But the Sixth Circuit then changed its position
on the issue of whether a union has to show a breach of the duty of fair representation in order to
proceed with a Title VII claim. Id. at 636-38. Because this Court had granted summary
judgment in favor of the Union on that issue, without considering the merits of the Title VII
claims against the Union (as it did with the City), the case was remanded as to the Title VII
claims against the Union.
Following remand, the Union filed a summary judgment motion, addressing the merits of
Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against the Union.
On February 4, 2019, after full briefing by the parties, this Court issued an Opinion and
Order granting the Union’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 136). The Court issued that
decision after canceling a hearing it had previously scheduled. This Court did so after
concluding that oral argument was not necessary, because it would not aid the Court’s decisional
process on this particular motion.
In its Opinion and Order, the Court noted what it considers to be a poor practice by
Plaintiffs’ Counsel in responding to a summary judgment motion. This Court’s practice
guidelines, which are expressly incorporated into the scheduling orders in this case, provide that
the “parties must provide the Court with a Judge’s Copy of all motions and briefs filed in support
of and in opposition to motions. The parties must also provide the Court with a Judge’s Copy of
all exhibits filed in relation to a motion. The Judge’s Copy of Exhibits should also be indexed
and tabbed.” (ECF Nos. 11, 22 & 38 at 2) (emphasis added). In responding to the Union’s postremand summary judgment motion, however, rather than file a response brief with all of the cited
materials attached to it as exhibits, Plaintiffs’ Counsel referenced, by docket number, various
portions of the record evidence that was previously submitted to the Court by the parties, in
connection with the prior summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs Counsel did separately file a
few of the materials referenced (see ECF No. 130) but that filing did not include all of the
evidence referenced in Plaintiffs’ final response brief.1 Thus, rather than provide the Court
reviewing the motion with a Judge’s copy of a binder containing all of the referenced materials
as exhibits, Plaintiffs’ Counsel left it “to the Court to go find” various materials in the docket in
order to review them.
This Court also noted that, even more importantly, “Plaintiffs did not provide the Court
with any evidence that was not previously provided to the Court. As such, there is no new
evidence before the Court.” (Id. at PageID.4619).
In evaluating the motion, this Court located in the docket, printed out hard copies, and
then carefully reviewed and considered, all of the evidence cited by Plaintiffs in response to the
Union’s summary judgment motion. In considering whether Plaintiffs could survive summary
judgment via direct evidence, this Court explained that “Plaintiffs’ brief referenced their having
‘direct evidence,’ (see Pls.’ Br. at 23 & 26) but they do not come out and specify what they
believe is the direct evidence that could support their claims. So this Court will address all
references to evidence that Plaintiffs’ may be trying to characterize as direct evidence.” (ECF
No. 136 at PageID.4621) (emphasis added). This Court then addressed the evidence referenced
by Plaintiffs in their response brief, and ultimately concluded that none of it constitutes direct
evidence. (Id. at PageID.4621-23).
On March 4, 2019, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Alter And Amend The
Opinion And Order [DN 136] And The Judgment Entered [DN 137] Based Thereon” (ECF No.
For example, it did not include the cited pages of Plaintiff McCloud’s deposition
transcript, the cited pages of Plaintiff Fields’s deposition transcript, or the cited pages of Teresa
Singleton’s deposition transcript.
“A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment only if there
is ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.’” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol.
Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620
(6th Cir. 2005)). To prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e), newly discovered
evidence must have been previously unavailable. HDC, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, 675 F.3d 608,
615 (6th Cir. 2012).
Here, Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis for altering or amending this Court’s opinion
and order granting summary judgment in favor of the Union. Plaintiffs have not shown a clear
error of law, have not identified any newly discovered evidence, and have not identified any
intervening change in controlling law. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have also failed to
show that the judgment should be altered or amended in order to prevent manifest injustice.
In their motion, Plaintiffs assert that this Court “ignored,” or failed to consider, the
exhibits they filed and/or the evidence they cited in their response brief. Simply stated, this
assertion is false. This Court considered all of the evidence referenced by Plaintiffs, regardless
of whether Plaintiffs’ Counsel complied with this Court’s practice guidelines by providing the
Court with a Judge’s Copy of a binder containing all of the referenced materials.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel also complains that the Court did not hear oral argument on the
motion. This Court, however, has the discretion to decide a motion without holding oral
argument. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). After having reviewed the briefs filed in connection with
the Union’s post-remand summary judgment motion, this Court concluded that oral argument
would not be helpful and ordered that the motion would be decided without oral argument.
The remainder of Plaintiffs’ motion continues to make the same arguments previously
made by Plaintiffs, that were considered and rejected by the Court.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: April 29, 2019
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?