United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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).
“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).
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
erroneous premise of Defendant's arguments in its Motion
for Reconsideration is evidenced by several statements it
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