United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 116)
D. Borman United States District Judge.
Title VII case, Plaintiff James Stevenson III alleges that
his employer, the United States Postal Service,
took various adverse employment actions against him for
discriminatory and retaliatory reasons over the course of
March 12, 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Defendant.
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of that Opinion and
Order, arguing that the Court erred in determining that
Plaintiff had not shown a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether there was a sufficient causal connection between
his protected activity and any adverse actions taken by
Defendant against him. For the reasons that follow, the Court
will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
March 12, 2018, this Court issued an Opinion and Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and Referring the Matter to
Facilitative Mediation. (ECF No. 113, Opinion and Order.)
There, the Court described the causation standard that
governs Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim in the
“Title VII retaliation claims ‘must be proved
according to traditional principles of but-for causation,
' which ‘requires proof that the unlawful
retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the
alleged wrongful action or actions of the
employer.'” Laster [v. City of
Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 731 (6th Cir. 2014)] (quoting
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct.
2517, 2533 (2013)); see also E.E.O. C. v. New Breed
Logistics, 783 F.3d 1057, 1070 (6th Cir. 2015)
(“[U]nder Nassar, a Title VII claimant must
show that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause
of the adverse action by the employer.”).
(Opinion and Order at 34, Pg ID 4718.) Under that standard,
the Court held (inter alia) that Plaintiff had
failed to meet his prima facie burden with respect
to causation on his retaliation claim, insofar as that claim
was based on certain specific factual grounds. (See
Id. at 34, 40, 43-44, 48-49, Pg ID 4718, 4724, 4727-28,
filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on March 26,
2018, seeking reconsideration of the March 12, 2018 Opinion
and Order generally, and the Court's findings as to
causation specifically. (ECF No. 116, Pl.'s Mot.) Under
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(1), the Court determines that no
hearing is necessary to rule on the Motion for
Reconsideration, and that the matter is otherwise ripe for
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides as follows:
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. LR 7.1(h)(3).
‘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 motion for reconsideration which
presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted.” Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com,
Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001); see
also Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759,
780 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (“It is an exception to the norm
for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration. . . .
[A]bsent a significant error that changes the outcome of a
ruling on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with
an opportunity to relitigate issues already decided.”).
“A motion for reconsideration should not be used
liberally to get a second bite at the apple, but should be
used sparingly to correct actual ...