United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Barbara J. Stringer
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
A. DICLERICO, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
J. Stringer, who is proceeding pro se, brought claims against
her former employer, Home Depot, arising from the treatment
she received during her employment and the circumstances of
her termination. Summary judgment was entered against
Stringer on all claims. She now moves for reconsideration.
Home Depot objects.
reconsideration of an order is “‘an extraordinary
remedy which should be used sparingly.'” Palmer
v. Champion Mtg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006)
(quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., 11 Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). For that reason,
reconsideration is “appropriate only in a limited
number of circumstances: if the moving party presents newly
discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening change
in the law, or if the movant can demonstrate that the
original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was
clearly unjust.” United States v. Allen, 573
F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009).
motion for reconsideration cannot succeed when the moving
party is attempting “to undo its own procedural
failures” or “advanc[ing] arguments that could
and should have been presented earlier.” Id. A
motion for reconsideration also is not a means to reargue
matters that were considered and rejected in the previous
order. Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d
925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
contends that the order granting summary judgment must be
reconsidered because material factual disputes
exist.She argues that the court incorrectly
determined that Peter Tavano did not make the termination
decision by himself. She also argues that the Investigation
Review Summary creates a material factual dispute about the
reason for her termination. Home Depot contends that the
motion must be denied because Stringer has not met the
standard for reconsideration.
record presented for purposes of summary judgment showed that
Peter Tavano, the manager of the Home Depot Store where
Stringer worked, recommended to Home Depot's Associate
Advice and Counsel Group that Stringer's employment
should be terminated. After an investigation, the Group,
comprised of human resource professionals at Home Depot,
agreed with Tavano's recommendation. Tavano then
terminated Stringer's employment.
purposes of reconsideration, Stringer cites deposition
testimony of Frances Cianci, who was a member of the Group,
to argue that Tavano, alone, made the decision to terminate
her.Cianci testified that the store manager
makes the final termination decision, based on the
recommendation of the Group. Cianci's testimony shows
that Tavano's decision was based on the recommendation of
the Group, as the evidence showed for purposes of summary
it might have been possible for Tavano to decide not to
terminate Stringer's employment, despite the
recommendation of the Group, he chose to follow the
Group's recommendation. Cianci's deposition testimony
shows that the termination process was collaborative, not
unilateral. Therefore, Cianci's testimony does not create
a material factual dispute about the process used in
Investigation Review Summary
argues, as she did in her objection to summary judgment, that
the Investigation Review Summary shows at least a factual
dispute about why she was terminated. Stringer's theory
was thoroughly considered and addressed at the hearing on the
motion for summary judgment and in the order granting summary
judgment. See Order, doc. no. 65, at 16-17 & 22. The
investigation Review Summary does not provide evidence that
she was terminated because of her ...