Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hi-Line Elec. Co.

805 F.Supp.2d 298

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

v.HI–LINE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 3:09–cv–1848–F.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Aug. 18, 2011.

Suzanne M. Anderson, Devika Seth, Robert A. Canino, Jr., Toby W. Costas, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Robert H. Walker, Walter D. Willson, Wells Marble & Hurst PLLC, Ridgeland, MS, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ROYAL FURGESON, Senior District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 30, 2011 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) (Docket No. 53). In its Motion, the EEOC asks the Court to reconsider its Order Granting in Part and Denying Without Prejudice in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed May 9, 2011 (Docket No. 50). Defendant Hi–Line Electric Company (“Hi–Line”) filed a Response on June 30, 2011 (Docket No. 56). A hearing was held regarding this Motion on August 12, 2011.¹ After considering the arguments and briefs of the parties, it is the opinion of the Court that the Motion for Reconsideration should be GRANTED.²

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The EEOC filed its Complaint against Hi–Line on September 30, 2009. The EEOC alleged that since September 2004, Hi–Line violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), in its recruitment and hiring policies. The EEOC alleged that the policies had the effect of excluding applicants over the age of 50 years from the position of Territory Manager. The EEOC requested relief including a permanent injunction regarding the alleged conduct, payment of back wages and other damages, and an order requiring the institution of policies, programs and practices to provide equal employment opportunities for applicants over the age of 50 years. In its original pleadings, the EEOC described the “Hi–Line Box,” which provided criteria for Hi–Line to make hiring decisions, and alleged that this system acted to discriminate against older applicants. However, the EEOC did not name any individuals who were affected by the alleged discrimination, nor did it provide any details about the filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or the following of any of the procedures laid out by the ADEA for individual claimants. The EEOC filed an Amended Complaint on February 25, 2010 (Docket No. 21), and again did not include any information regarding any individuals on whose behalf it sought to recover.

On October 22, 2010, Hi–Line moved to dismiss all of the EEOC's claims for monetary relief on the grounds that the EEOC had not named any individual on whose behalf it intended to recover. See Mot. to Dismiss, Docket No. 27. The Court denied this motion without prejudice and allowed the EEOC to amend its pleadings in accordance with the Court's Order of December 28, 2010 (Docket No. 33), which required the EEOC to name those individuals on whose behalf it sought to recover. The EEOC filed an Amended Complaint on January 25, 2011 (Docket No. 36), in which it listed eighteen individuals who were allegedly denied hiring opportunities because of their age. The EEOC did not, however, add these eighteen individuals as parties to this action, and provided no details regarding what happened to these individuals, when the alleged discrimination took place, whether they ever filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, or any other facts. Hi–Line later produced information indicating that the alleged failures to hire took place mostly in 2006 and 2007, with two taking place between 2003 and 2005.

Hi–Line subsequently filed a second Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2011 (Docket No. 44), arguing that Plaintiff had failed to address the Court's concerns in its prior Order and that because these individuals were not named plaintiffs, the EEOC lacked standing to obtain monetary relief on their behalf. Hi–Line asked the Court to limit the scope of relief available to the EEOC to injunctive relief, and dismiss the EEOC's claims that seek monetary relief. Hi–Line also argued that the Court should dismiss claims for individual relief on behalf of the 18 individuals named in the Second Amended Complaint because these individuals were not named in the pleadings until at least four years after the alleged discrimination occurred, and therefore these claims were untimely. The Court granted Hi–Line's Motion in part on May 9, 2011 (Docket No. 50), agreeing with Hi–Line's argument that 29 U.S.C. § 216(c) required that the parties be named as plaintiffs in the pleadings in a timely fashion, and that the EEOC was required to name the eighteen individuals it purported to represent as party plaintiffs in order to recover monetary relief on their behalf under 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), which was incorporated into the ADEA. However, the Court also held that the EEOC could recover some monetary relief, namely back pay, under Section 217 without naming these individuals in the pleadings so long as those claims were timely when the EEOC's original Complaint was filed. The Court gave the EEOC until May 30, 2011 to amend its pleadings yet again to provide additional allegations of fact that would demonstrate the timeliness of the claims.

On May 30, 2011, rather than amending its pleadings, the EEOC filed the instant Motion. In its Motion, the EEOC asks the Court to reconsider its Order of May 9, 2011 to the extent that it barred the EEOC from recovering monetary relief on behalf of the eighteen individuals listed in the Complaint under 29 U.S.C. § 216(c). The EEOC contends that the Court erred in construing 29 U.S.C. § 216(c) and Fifth Circuit precedent as requiring name the eighteen listed individuals as named plaintiffs or party plaintiffs in order to recover on their behalf.

II. Analysis

As an initial matter, Hi–Line raises a procedural objection to the EEOC's Motion for Reconsideration. Hi–Line argues that the EEOC's Motion for Reconsideration is untimely because its Motion challenges the validity of the Court's initial Order of December 28, 2010, not its more recent Order of May 9, 2011. The Court disagrees with this assertion. The EEOC is challenging the provisions of the Court's May 9, 2011 Order that bar it from asserting claims for monetary relief on behalf of the eighteen individuals listed in the Second Amended Complaint. Nothing in the Court's December 28, 2010 Order barred such relief; instead, it authorized the EEOC to amend its pleadings to list the allegedly aggrieved individuals if it wished to recover on their behalf. The Court's May 9, 2011 Order had the additional effect of barring monetary damages after the EEOC had listed the names of the allegedly aggrieved individuals, and the EEOC's Motion for Reconsideration challenges that provision of the Order. Accordingly, this Motion is timely, and the Court rejects this procedural argument.

The Court also rejects Hi–Line's contention that these arguments are barred because they were raised by the EEOC in regard to a prior Motion to Dismiss that was ruled upon on December 28, 2010. Hi–Line claims that the arguments raised by the EEOC are simply rehashes of their previous arguments concerning the naming of aggrieved individuals in its pleadings, and the Court should not permit those arguments to be relitigated. Hi–Line is correct that a motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir.2004). However, the EEOC raises arguments that specifically relate to provisions of the Court's May 9, 2011 Order and that Order's impact on this litigation, and the Court considers it appropriate to consider these arguments at this time. Such a course of action is well within the Court's “considerable discretion” in making a decision on a motion for reconsideration. Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 Fed.Appx. 359, 364 (5th Cir.2009).

Having determined that the instant Motion is timely and may be raised, the Court now moves to the substance of the Motion. Hi–Line argues that the EEOC's Motion for Reconsideration should be denied because it does not implicate the requirements for a Motion for Reconsideration that have been articulated by courts in this Circuit. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a motion for reconsideration in the context of an order on a motion to dismiss, courts generally assess whether a motion for reconsideration is proper based upon any one of the grounds stemming from Rule 59(e), which governs motions to alter or amend judgments. See Flores v. Procunier, 745 F.2d 338, 339 (5th Cir.1984) (“A ‘motion for reconsideration’ is treated as a motion to amend or alter the judgment.”). Accordingly, the grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir.2002). Similar to proper Rule 59(e) motions raised after the entry of judgment, a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.

It is clear to the Court that the first two grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are not present. There has been no intervening change in controlling law, and the EEOC does not provide new evidence that was not previously available to the parties and the Court. Accordingly, to grant the motion for reconsideration, there must be a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. The EEOC argues that the Court erred in ruling in its Order of May 9, 2011 that the EEOC could not seek monetary damages on behalf of the eighteen individuals listed in the Second Amended Complaint because the EEOC had not added...