Leslie v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
ORDER denying 39 Motion for partial Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PAMELA LESLIE, REBEKAH LEE
KEELEY, PAMELA JEAN BLAKE,
ELIZABETH ANN KAPUS & JASON
Case No. 15-11205
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY d/b/a AT&T MICHIGAN,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
Defendant moves for partial reconsideration of the Court's August 9, 2016 order
denying summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant's
Plaintiffs previously worked as service representatives in Defendant’s call center. On
March 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant unlawfully
retaliated against them in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the
Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). On August 9, 2016, this
Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' FMLA and
PWDCRA claims, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
(Dkt. 36.) Defendant now seeks reconsideration of the Court's order as to two Plaintiffs:
Pamela Jean Blake and Jason Lewandowski.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a party
may move for reconsideration of an order within fourteen days of the order's issuance. For
the motion to succeed, the movant “must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which
the court and the parties ... have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h). A court generally will
not grant a motion for reconsideration that “merely present[s] the same issues ruled upon
by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” Id.
Defendant argues that the Court's opinion contains three "palpable outcome-
determinative defects," which, if corrected, would compel summary judgment in
Defendant's favor. (Dkt. 39, at 3-4.) First, Defendant claims that the Court cited insufficient
evidence to demonstrate "a genuine issue of fact that [Blake] was subjected to intolerable
working conditions from a subjective or objective perspective." (Id. at 5.)
Second, Defendant claims that the Court cited insufficient evidence to demonstrate "a
genuine issue of fact as to whether [Lewandowski] was subject to intolerable working
conditions from a subjective or objective perspective." (Id. at 11.) Finally, Defendant
claims that the Court cited insufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact as
to Defendant's intent that Blake and Lewandoski resign based on a retaliatory or
discriminatory motive. (Id. at 18.)
The Court finds Defendant's arguments unavailing. In a motion for reconsideration,
"the fact that the defendant does not believe the Court gave  evidence sufficient
consideration does not rise to the level of a palpable defect." Jones v. Mathai, 2010 WL
4921558, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2010.) All three alleged defects here relate exclusively
to the Court's weighing of the evidence. Indeed, each of Defendant's arguments proposes
either that: the Court incorrectly weighed evidence; it "overlooked" contradictory evidence,
"improperly view[ing]  allegations in isolation"; or it ignored evidence that "overshadows"
the Plaintiffs' allegations. (Dkt. 39, at 3.) This attempted relitigation of old issues does not
warrant relief under Rule 7.1, and Defendant has not introduced new facts or law that would
compel a different result. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: September 21, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on September 21, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
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?