The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 64)
On October 29, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support in the above-captioned matter. Doc. Nos. 36, 39. Plaintiff filed her Brief in Opposition on November 8, 2012. Doc. No. 44.
This Court granted Summary Judgment to Defendant by way of an Opinion and Order both dated November 15, 2012. Doc. Nos. 61, 62. On November 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support. Doc. Nos. 64, 65. On November 27, 2012, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Doc No. 67. The reconsideration matter is now ripe for adjudication. Plaintiff's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Generally, a Motion for Reconsideration will only be granted on one of the following three grounds: (1) if there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) if new evidence, which was not previously available, has become available; or (3) if it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See, Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
A court may not grant a Motion for Reconsideration when the motion simply restyles or rehashes issues previously presented. Pahler v. City of Wilkes Barre, 207 F. Supp. 2d 341, 355 (M.D. Pa. 2001). A motion for reconsideration "addresses only factual and legal matters that the Court may have overlooked . . . . It is improper on a motion for reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what [it] had already thought through rightly or wrongly." Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (internal citation and quotes omitted). Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly. Rossi v. Schlarbaum, 600 F. Supp. 2d 650, 670 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
Plaintiff raises two issues before this Court, arguing that she is entitled to reconsideration of this Court's Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff contends that the Court made a "manifest error of law" by: (1) failing to address Count 2 of her Amended Complaint, and (2) basing a portion of its decision on an "argument" the Court raised sua sponte. The Court finds that despite Plaintiff's slight mischaracterization of Max's Seafood Cafe, the first argument Plaintiff makes is valid, but the second lacks merit.
A. Reconsideration related to Count 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Plaintiff contends that this Court in its prior Opinion (doc. no. 61) did not address whether summary judgment should be granted in favor of Defendant as to Count Two of her Amended Complaint. Count Two of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is styled, "Count 2: ADA-Discriminatory Termination[.]" Doc. No. 24, p. 7.
Defendant contends that this Court adequately addressed Plaintiff's discriminatory termination claim set forth in Count Two by finding that Plaintiff did not possess a "disability" as that term is defined by the ADA and thus, ruled in favor of Defendant.
In its prior Opinion, the Court held first and foremost, Plaintiff did not have an ADA-definable disability. See Doc. No. 61. As noted in the Court's prior Opinion, Plaintiff readily admitted that she did not have a learning disability (nor any other mental impairment) at the time a co-worker used a perjorative term concerning Plaintiff's mental capacity. Doc. No. 61, p. 3, citing to the parties Joint Statement of Material Facts (doc. no. 60) at ¶¶ 10, 12, 17, 30. The Court's prior Opinion further noted that it is well-settled law that the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against those individuals who have "qualified disabilities." Doc. no. 61, p. 5, citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112. Ultimately, the Court held that because Plaintiff admitted that she did not have a learning disability or other mental impairment (i.e., a "qualified disability") when she was subjected to her co-worker's use of a perjorative term related to her mental capacity, Plaintiff failed to prove her prima facie case for an ADA-based claim. Doc. No. 61, pp. 8-9.
This ruling applies to every one of Plaintiff's ADA claims set forth throughout her Amended Complaint, including Plaintiff's ADA discriminatory termination claim set forth in Count Two of her Amended Complaint. The Court's Opinion in this regard remains intact and by partially granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court ...