The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Paul D. Borman United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF OPINION AND ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 2, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's March 24, 2010 Opinion and Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 29.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
In its March 24, 2010 Order, this Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concluded in part that Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her claim that Defendants violated the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.1101 et seq. ("PWDCRA"). The Court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, she had presented evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was disabled, as that term is defined under the PWDCRA, whether her disability was unrelated to her ability to perform the functions of her job and whether she had been discriminated against in one of the ways set forth in the PWDCRA.
Defendants now ask this Court to reconsider its conclusion that there exists a question of fact regarding whether Plaintiff was regarded as disabled under the PWDCRA. Defendants argue (1) that the Court made assumptions about Defendants' perceptions of Plaintiff's disability that were not supported by the record and (2) that the Court did not draw any conclusions, or rely on any evidence presented by Plaintiff, on the issue of whether Defendants regarded Plaintiff's condition as unrelated to her ability to perform her job.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3), which states in pertinent part:
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.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). "A 'palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich.2001).
A. Evidence of Defendants' Perceptions of Plaintiff's Condition
Defendants first contend that there is no evidence to support the fact that Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff's underlying condition of rheumatoid arthritis and of the physical manifestations of the disease, such as broken bones. This is not true. Plaintiff testified in her deposition as follows:
Q: Other than the conversations you've testified to about talking to Ms. Nims, did you ever discuss your ...