Hill v. Memorial Drive United Methodist Church
Filing
53
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; denying 50 Motion to Alter Order/Judgment (Re: 46 Judgment,, Entering Judgment,,, 45 Opinion and Order,, Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s),,,, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Ruling on Motion to Strike Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LADON E. HILL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORIAL DRIVE UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. 17-CV-0227-CVE-JFJ
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment (Dkt. # 50).
On February 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order (Dkt. # 45) granting defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its opinion and order as to his
claim of retaliation, and he claims that he offered sufficient evidence of post-employment retaliation
to give rise to a genuine issue of disputed fact on this claim.1 Defendant responds that the Court has
already considered and rejected each argument raised in plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff has not
offered any new evidence or identified any change in the controlling law. Plaintiff’s deadline to file
a reply has expired, and no reply was filed.
Plaintiff was formerly employed as a youth minister at the Memorial Drive United Methodist
Church, and his employment was terminated on February 10, 2013. On October 23, 2013, Hill filed
a civil action against defendant in Tulsa County District Court alleging claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The case was
1
Plaintiff asks that all of his claims be “reinstated,” but he offers argument only in support
of a request to reconsider his retaliation claim. The Court will consider only the specific
arguments made by plaintiff in his motion.
removed to federal court. Ladon E. Hill v. Memorial Drive United Methodist Church, 13-CV-745JHP-TLW (N.D. Okla.). The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal and Hill’s claims were
dismissed without prejudice to refiling. On February 9, 2017, Hill refiled the case in Tulsa County
District Court, and defendant removed the case to this Court. Hill alleges claims of racial
discrimination and retaliation under § 1981. Dkt. # 2-2.
On February 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order (Dkt. # 45) granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant. The Court found that plaintiff could establish a prima facie case
of racial discrimination under § 1981, but there was no evidence tending to show that defendant’s
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual. Dkt.
# 45, at 8-12. As to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the Court construed plaintiff’s arguments as an
attempt to show that he was the victim of post-termination retaliation. The focus of the Court’s
analysis was whether defendant engaged in post-termination conduct with the intent to dissuade
plaintiff from making or pursuing a charge of discrimination against defendant. Id. at 14-17.
Plaintiff argued that defendant advised church members that he was no longer a church employee,
and plaintiff believed that defendant “disparaged” him by refusing to assume responsibility for youth
left in plaintiff’s care. The Court determined that defendant simply advised church members that
plaintiff was not an employee, and this was particularly important because plaintiff continued to
make misleading representations about his employment status. Id. at 15. Plaintiff argued that he
was prohibited from attending a youth council meeting in April 2013, but the Court determined that
the decision to exclude plaintiff from the meeting was not made by defendant. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also
argued that defendant notified some of its members in July 2013 that plaintiff had filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
2
The Court
considered and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the conduct was retaliatory, because the alleged
conduct could not be tied to defendant as plaintiff’s former employer and the alleged conduct would
not have constituted an adverse employment action. Id. at 16-17.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment of
dismissal, and the Court will treat plaintiff’s motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), a party may ask a district court to reconsider a final ruling
or judgment when the district court has “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law.” Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir.
2009). “Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Reconsideration is “not available to allow a party to reargue an issue previously addressed by the
court when the reargument merely advances new arguments or supporting facts which were
available for presentation at the time of the original argument.” FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152
F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th
Cir. 1996)). “A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is designed to permit relief in extraordinary
circumstances and not to offer a second bite at the proverbial apple.” Syntroleum Corp. v. Fletcher
Int’l, Ltd., 2009 WL 761322 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 19, 2009).
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and finds no basis to reconsider its opinion and
order (Dkt. # 45) granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not provided any
new evidence or identified a change in the controlling law, and his motion is based on arguments
that he previously advanced in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court
3
specifically considered each of the arguments raised in plaintiff’s motion to reconsider in its ruling
on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court rejected each of the arguments that has
been re-asserted in plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. The sole basis for plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider is that he disagrees with the Court’s opinion and order, but this is not an appropriate basis
for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment
(Dkt. # 50) is denied.
DATED this 25th day of April, 2018.
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?