United States District Court, D. New Jersey
BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI, United States District Judge.
opened to the Court by Amanda Holley's
(“Holley”) Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
168), seeking reconsideration of the October 12, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 167), which established
the elements of, and standard of proof for establishing, a
§ 1983 claim for hostile work environment against
individuals and employers; Defendants the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey Sergeant Erick Torres (collectively
“Defendants”) oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 169.)
moves for reconsideration on the basis that this Court and
other district courts in this circuit have ignored
Andrews v. Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir.
1990) and have improperly utilized the Title VII hostile work
environment framework in the context of discrimination claims
brought under the Equal Protection Clause. Defendants argue
Holley “Cites no manifest error of law or fact nor does
she cite to new evidence or new law that would cause this
court to reconsider its ruling.” (ECF No. 169 at 2.)
not expressly authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, motions for reconsideration are proper pursuant to
this District's Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) if there are
“matters or controlling decisions which counsel
believes the Judge . . . has overlooked.” L.Civ.R.
7.1(i); Dunn v. Reed Grp., Inc., No. 08-1632, 2010
WL 174861, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan 13, 2010). The comments to that
Rule make clear, however, that “reconsideration is an
extraordinary remedy that is granted ‘very
sparingly.'” L.Civ.R. 7.1(i) cmt. 6(d) (quoting
Brackett v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3988, 2003 WL 22303078,
*2 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2003)). In that regard, the Third Circuit
has held the scope of a motion for reconsideration is
“extremely limited.” Blystone v. Horn,
664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). “Such motions are not
to be used as an opportunity to relitigate the case; rather,
they may be used only to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Id. Accordingly, an order or judgment may only be
altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows
at least one of the following grounds: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [made its initial decision]; or (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” United States ex rel. Schumann v.
AstraZeneca Pharms. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848-49 (3d Cir.
commits clear error of law “only if the record cannot
support the findings that led to the ruling.” ABS
Brokerage Servs. v. Penson Fin. Servs., Inc., No.
09-4590, 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2010)
(citing United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 603-04 (3d Cir.
2008)). “Thus, a party must . . . demonstrate that (1)
the holdings on which it bases its request were without
support in the record, or (2) would result in ‘manifest
injustice' if not addressed.” Id. In
short, “[m]ere ‘disagreement with the Court's
decision' does not suffice.” ABS Brokerage
Servs., 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (quoting P.
Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161
F.Supp.2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001)).
Motion does not assert: (1) there has been an intervening
change in the controlling law; (2) there is new evidence
available that was not available when the Court issued its
October 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order; or (3) the
October 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order contains a
clear error of law or fact. See United States ex rel.
Schumann, 769 F.3d at 848-49. While Holley argues the
Court “must have overlooked” Andrews
when rendering its opinion, the Court reviewed and cited to
Andrews on multiple occasions throughout its
Memorandum Opinion and Order. (See ECF No. 167.) In
fact, Holley concedes the Court “did rely upon
Andrews for other parts of its opinion.” (ECF
No. 168 at 1 n.1.) “It is improper on a motion for
reconsideration to ask the Court to rethink what it has
already thought through, whether rightly or wrongly.”
S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Tp. Bd. of Educ., 248
F.Supp.2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003) (citation omitted).
essence, Holley merely disagrees with the Court's
previous decision and is attempting to relitigate the issues
previously decided in the October 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order. This is not a valid basis for a motion for
reconsideration. See Blystone, 664 F.3d at 415
(expressly forbidding the use of a motion for reconsideration
to relitigate a motion).
reviewed her motion and having declined to hold oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the
reasons set forth and for good cause shown,