Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ellis Waters v. Shoprite Supermarkets

December 5, 2011

ELLIS WATERS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHOPRITE SUPERMARKETS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.

OPINION

Plaintiff Ellis T. Waters filed this lawsuit against ShopRite Supermarkets, Inc. ("SRSI") and SRSI's parent company, Wakefern Foods Corporation, Inc. ("Wakefern"), alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"). This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 18, 2011 Opinion and Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

I.BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are as follows. Plaintiff worked as a grocery stock clerk in an SRSI store in Clark, New Jersey. Between November 1, 2008 and October 13, 2009, Plaintiff was the oldest clerk in the store. Plaintiff alleges that, in that time period, the store's management disciplined him and later terminated him because of his age.

In December 2008, Plaintiff completed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") questionnaire alleging that SRSI's management engaged in acts that constituted age discrimination. *fn1 EEOC representatives responded to Plaintiff's questionnaire on December 8, 2008, and worked with Plaintiff to supplement his claims. Plaintiff filed a formal charge with the EEOC on February 17, 2009 in which he listed SRSI as a respondent, but did not list Wakefern as a respondent. The EEOC sent Plaintiff a right-to-sue notice on March 8, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a five-count Complaint against SRSI and Wakefern. Counts I and III asserted claims under the ADEA. Counts II and IV asserted claims under the NJLAD. Count V asserted a retaliation claim. On November 15, 2010, SRSI and Wakefern moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing, in part, that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Wakefern by failing to list Wakefern in the EEOC charge. On February 18, 2011, the Court entered an Order that, inter alia, dismissed Wakefern from the action. On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) may be granted only if:

(1) there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not available when the Court issued the subject order has become available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Relief by way of a motion for reconsideration is considered an "extraordinary remedy," to be granted only sparingly. NL Indus. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1999).

A motion for reconsideration should not be treated as an appeal of a prior decision. See Morris v. Siemens Components, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 277, 278 (D.N.J. 1996) ("A party's mere disagreement with a decision of the district court should be raised in the ordinary appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for reargument." It is improper for the moving party to "ask the court to rethink what it ha[s] already thought through-rightly or wrongly." Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990).

III.ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of two issues: (1) dismissal of the ADEA claims against Wakefern (Counts I and III of the Complaint), and (2) dismissal of the NJLAD claims against Wakefern (Counts II and IV of the Complaint).

A.The ADEA Claims

Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss Plaintiff's ADEA claims against Wakefern (Counts I and III of the Complaint). Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied the burden of production with respect to Wakefern's affirmative defense of administrative ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.