Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MacEachern v. Creative Solutions Group, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 6, 2019

MARGARET E MacEACHERN, Plaintiff,
v.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#21]

          DENISE PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On August 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a four-count Complaint alleging that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy and sex, in violation of Title VII and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”). On November 1, 2019, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19. On November 15, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 21, arguing that the Court “fail[ed] to properly apply the standard for summary judgment on the issue of pretext.” For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The relevant facts regarding this case were set forth in the Court's November 1, 2019 Order. The Court incorporates those facts by reference in this Order.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Legal Standard

         In order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the party bringing the motion for reconsideration must: (1) demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled; and (2) demonstrate that “correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). See also Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865, 866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

         A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D.Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the disposition of the case would be different if the palpable defect were cured. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Brown v. Walgreens Income Protective Plan for Store Managers, No. 10-CV-14442, 2013 WL 1040530, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2013). “[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).

         B. Analysis

         The Court finds that Defendant fails to offer any new argument regarding Plaintiff's Title VII and ELCRA claims. Defendant's current arguments, like its arguments in its Motion for Summary Judgment, focus on the facts that favor Defendant and generally ignore that the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party - Plaintiff. The Court does not weigh the evidence at the summary judgment stage, see, e.g., ECF No. 19, PgID 389-90, as that is a function for the trier of fact. For purposes of deciding a motion for summary judgment, it is irrelevant that there are far more witnesses that have given deposition testimony or submitted affidavits that favor Defendant.[1]

         The erroneous premise of Defendant's arguments in its Motion for Reconsideration is evidenced by several statements it makes:

1. “The Order summarily concluded the six things relied on by Plaintiff ‘constitute evidence' of pretext and, thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. The Order erroneously failed to even consider CSG's extensive, corroborated evidence against finding sufficient evidence of pretext. Accordingly, as a result of this palpable defect, . . .”
2. “While CSG obviously agrees with the holding, it takes issue with the Order's brief characterization of CSG's evidence regarding Plaintiff's poor performance. Whereas throughout, the Order cites specifically to testimony and other evidence relied upon by Plaintiff, the Order reduces CSG's ample and compelling evidence to a one-sentence summary diminished by the qualifier ‘allegedly' that in no way accurately reflects the strength of CSG's case. The Order does not use that qualifier when citing to Plaintiff's unsubstantiated ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.