United States District Court, E.D. New York
Darian Trent, Sr., pro se Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.
David M. Cohen, Esq., Cooper, Sapir & Cohen, P.C., Melville, NY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.
Currently pending before the Court are pro se plaintiff Darian Trent, Sr.'s ("Plaintiff") motions for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (See Docket Entries 169-70.) Although docketed as two separate entries, the motions are nearly identical with the exception that one is handwritten and one is typed. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are DENIED.
The Court presumes familiarity the factual background of this case, which is set forth in detail in the Court's August 15, 2013 Memorandum and Order granting defendant Town of Brookhaven's ("Defendant" or the "Town") motion for summary judgment (the "SJ Order, " Docket Entry 166). Briefly, Plaintiff-an African-American male-brought this action against the Town as his former employer for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117 ("ADA").
Plaintiff asserts that the Town and its employees discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his race and a re-aggravated hand injury sustained on the job. (See SJ Order at 4-5 (citations omitted).) In support, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant treated Caucasian employees more favorably than Plaintiff. (SJ Order at 5 (citations omitted).) For example, he maintains that, whereas Plaintiff was fired purportedly due to his latenesses and absences, Defendant gave Caucasian employee Thomas Stretch the opportunity to quit before he would be fired. (SJ Order at 5 (citation omitted).) Plaintiff further asserts that Ed Hubbard, the Town's Environmental Facilities Manager, spoke negatively about Plaintiff to other employees. (SJ Order at 6 (citation omitted).)
Defendant, however, maintains, inter alia, that Plaintiff had a history of latenesses and absences and that he was ultimately terminated only after several warnings. (SJ Order at 3-4 (citations omitted).) Defendant denies that Mr. Stretch was given the opportunity to quit or that any similarlysituated employee was treated more favorably. (SJ Order at 6 (citation omitted).) Moreover, Defendant acknowledges that it received notice of Plaintiff's injury prior to his termination, but asserts that its employees believed the notice to pertain to a previous hand injury and did not realize that there was a new, or re-aggravated, injury. (SJ Order at 5 (citations omitted).)
In the SJ Order, the Court considered each of Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's arguments for summary judgment. The Court concluded: (1) even if Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, Defendant had established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff's termination and Plaintiff did not sufficiently set forth evidence of pretext; (2) Plaintiff did not sufficiently carry his burden of showing pretext for his ADA claim; and (3) Plaintiff could not make out a claim for defamation.
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that Order.
The Court will first address the legal standard on a motion for reconsideration before turning to Plaintiff's motion specifically.
I. Legal Standard
Motions for reconsideration may be brought pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.3. See Wilson v. Pessah, No. 05-CV-3143, 2007 WL 812999, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2007). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party believes the Court overlooked important "matters or controlling decisions" that would have influenced the prior decision. Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 187 F.R.D. 148, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Reconsideration is not a proper tool to repackage and relitigate arguments and issues already considered by the Court in deciding the original motion. See United States v. Gross, No. 98-CR-0159, 2002 WL 32096592, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002) ("A party may not use a motion to reconsider as an opportunity to reargue the same points raised previously."). Nor is it proper to raise new arguments and issues. See Lehmuller v. Inc. Vill. of Sag Harbor, 982 F.Supp. 132, 135 ...