United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 1, 2017, Plaintiff Jennifer Edwards filed a complaint
against Defendant ALDI, Inc., alleging various violations of
the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant interfered with the exercise of
her right to take leave under the FMLA, and retaliated
against her for doing so by terminating her employment.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges she was terminated for
refusing to be complicit in fraudulent activity, in violation
of public policy, and that she was discriminated against
based on her disability. Id. After eight months of
discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment on February
19, 2018. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff responded on March 12, and
Defendant replied on March 26. ECF Nos. 31, 32. On May 9,
2018, the Court entered an order granting Defendant's
motion for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint in
its entirety. ECF No. 37. On May 23, Plaintiff filed a timely
motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 39. A full factual
summary was provided in the Court's May 9 order granting
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See id.
to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party
can file a motion for reconsideration of a previous order,
but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for
reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows:
“(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court
and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.”
Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181
F.Supp.2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing
Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d
262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he 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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
See also Bowens v. Terris, 2015 WL 3441531, at *1
(E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015).
motion for reconsideration contends that the analysis in the
Court's Order contains three palpable defects:
First, this Court erred in failing to find that Plaintiff
suffered from a “serious health condition” as
defined by the Act . . . . Second and as a result of the
first error, this Court erred in failing to find Plaintiff
engaged in protected activity, which was based upon its prior
improper reasoning that Plaintiff did not suffer a serious
health condition. Lastly, this Court erred in failing to find
a factual question regarding the issue of pretext.
Mot. at 1-2.
purposes of FMLA, a serious health condition entitling an
employee to FMLA leave means an illness, injury, impairment
or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care
as defined in § 825.114 or continuing treatment by a
health care provider as defined in § 825.115.” 29
C.F.R. § 825.113. Inpatient care, in turn, “means
an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential
medical care facility, including any period of incapacity as
defined in § 825.113(b), or any subsequent treatment in
connection with such inpatient care.” 29 C.F.R. §
825.114. “Continuing treatment by a health care
provider” includes, among other things, (c) Chronic
Conditions. Any period of incapacity or treatment for
such incapacity due to a chronic serious health
condition. A chronic serious health condition is one which:
(1) Requires periodic visits (defined as at least twice a
year) for treatment by a health care provider, or by a nurse
under direct supervision of a health care provider;
(2) Continues over an extended period of time (including
recurring episodes of a single underlying condition); and
(3) May cause episodic rather than a continuing period of
incapacity (e.g., asthma, ...