Casey v. Riverside School District et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case as CLOSED. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 12/8/11 (jam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RONALD CASEY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-2385

Plaintiff,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)
RIVERSIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MICHAEL DUDA, GEORGE BIEBER, and
CAROL ARMSTRONG,
Defendants,
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Ronald Casey moves the Court to reconsider its order dismissing his suit
dated March 23, 2011. (Doc. 19.) Mr. Casey originally filed an action for workplace
harassment under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). Mr.
Casey, who had worked as the Building and Grounds supervisor for the Riverside School
District for a number of years, claimed he was hounded out of his job by members of the
Riverside School District Board after denying a Board member’s husband use of the
Riverside School field house.
The Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for Mr. Casey’s failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”). While Mr. Casey argued
that he had filed complaints with both agencies, the only evidence he provided was a
undated questionnaire from the PHRC. Mr. Casey has now provided the Court with a letter
from the PHRC stating he did in fact attempt to file a complaint with them on October 28
and November 19 of 2008. However, since this is not “new evidence” under the applicable
standard for reconsideration, Mr. Casey’s motion will be denied.

A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within ten days of
entry. FED . R. CIV. P. 59(e). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985). A judgment may be altered or amended if the
party seeking reconsideration establishes at least one of the following grounds: “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
available when the court granted the motion . . . or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café, by Lou-Ann, Inc., v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999).
“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters
already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement
between the Court and the litigant.” Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp.2d 588,
606 (M.D. Pa. 2002). “[R]econsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments
or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Hill v.
Tammac Corp., Civ. A. No. 05-1148, 2006 WL 529044, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006). The
reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and such motions are granted
sparingly. D'Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F. Supp.2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Here, the letter Mr. Casey has submitted is not “new evidence.” It is a letter dated
July 27, 2011 and pertains to events that occurred in October and November of 2008. Mr.
Casey was on notice for some time that the defendants were claiming a “failure to exhaust”
and he could have easily requested this letter from the PHRC and submitted it to the Court

2

before it ruled on the motion to dismiss. It is not “new” evidence. Additionally, the letter
states clearly that Mr. Casey attempted to file a complaint with the PHRC on two occasions,
not that a complaint was actually filed. Mr. Casey has presented no caselaw supporting the
proposition that the mere attempt to file a complaint with the PHRC satisfies the exhaustion
requirement. For these reasons, Mr. Casey’s motion will be denied.
NOW, this

8th

day of December, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

plaintiff Ronald Casey’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED. Since amendment
would be futile, the Clerk of Court is directed to mark the case as CLOSED.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

3