United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Pascal Dougboh filed this Title VII employment discrimination
action pro se against Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.
(“Cisco” or “Defendant”) on July 8,
2013. Plaintiff alleges that Cisco refused to hire him on
account of his race. On October 20, 2016, the Court granted
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff moved
on October 31, 2016, for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is
in 2007, Plaintiff repeatedly sought and failed to obtain
employment as a network engineer with Cisco Systems, a
multinational communications and technology company.
Plaintiff received several interviews but was never hired. In
December 2012, having submitted “hundreds” of
applications to Cisco, Plaintiff filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging that Cisco
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
declining to hire Plaintiff on account of his
race. The EEOC investigated and then dismissed
the charge. Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this
Court on July 8, 2013, and amended the Complaint on April 22,
2014. Plaintiff's claims relate to five particular hiring
decisions between 2007 and 2012.
moved for summary judgment on June 10, 2016, following
discovery, arguing that the claims lacked merit and were
barred by Title VII's limitations provision. On October
20, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56. The Court found that, although not all of the claims were
time-barred, no material issue of fact remained, and
Defendant was entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.
Specifically, the Court found that circumstances did not
raise an inference of discriminatory intent and that,
regardless, Defendant presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its hiring decisions. Plaintiff now asks for
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) authorizes courts to
relieve a party from judgment in limited circumstances. One
ground for reconsideration is proof of “fraud . . .
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). “[I]n order to
sustain a burden of proving fraud and misrepresentation under
Rule 60(b)(3), the evidence must be clear and
convincing.” Floorgraphics Inc. v. News Am. Mktg.
In-Store Servs., Inc., 434 F.App'x 109, 111 (3d Cir.
2011) (citing Brown v. Penn. RR Co., 282 F.2d 522,
527 (3d Cir.1960)). “[T]he movant must establish that
 the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct,
and  this conduct prevented the moving party from fully
and fairly presenting his case.” Id. at
111-112 (citations omitted).
moves for reconsideration on the basis that, during
discovery, Defendant Cisco misrepresented or fraudulently
produced documents relating to Cisco's hiring process.
Because Plaintiff fails to provide “clear and
convincing evidence” that Cisco deliberately submitted
misleading information, or otherwise interfered with
Plaintiff's ability to present his case, the motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
order to establish discriminatory intent, Plaintiff requested
that Cisco provide information about applicants whom Cisco
chose to hire instead of Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff,
the documents show that Cisco lied when it had informed
Plaintiff that certain positions had already been filled by
the time Plaintiff applied. The Court, which already
considered versions of this argument at summary judgment,
finds that Plaintiff has simply misinterpreted the data
provided by Cisco. For example, with respect to spreadsheets
containing applicant data, the column “date
opened” refers not to when a candidate applied for the
position, but instead to “the date that the requisition
for which the candidate was hired was opened.”
Def.'s Br. Opposing Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration,
at 4. The Court also agrees with Cisco that Plaintiff
overlooks the difference between reference numbers for
particular job openings and “requisition numbers,
” which refer to “pipelines” for future job
that Cisco “forged” documents to hide its
discriminatory practices are unsupported. During discovery,
Cisco produced a list of applicants which contained
incomplete information about who was hired and when. Cisco,
however, acknowledged the mistake and submitted a corrected
list. The Court found Defendant's mistep to be
inadvertent. Certainly, production of the initial, inaccurate
list did not “prevent [Plaintiff] from fully and fairly
presenting his case, ” and Cisco acceded to re-opening
discovery. See ECF No. 71, at 13. Plaintiff presents
no new evidence that Cisco committed “fraud . . .
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party,
” so his motion fails. Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
reasons above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is
DENIED pursuant to the accompanying order.
Plaintiff remains free to appeal the Court's October 20,