United States District Court, D. Colorado
WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant, Ramtron International Corporation's, Motion For Reconsideration [ECF No. 36]. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
On February 27, 2012, plaintiff, Kathy Bouard, filed this suit against defendant, Ramtron International Corporation, alleging that Ramtron discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
On December 27, 2012, Ramtron filed a Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] arguing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Bouard's Title VII and ADA claims. On September 27, 2013, I issued an Order [ECF No. 35] denying Ramtron's Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21]. On October 21, 2013, Ramtron filed a Motion For Reconsideration [ECF No. 35] arguing that I erred in denying the Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] as it relates to Bouard's ADA claim.
A. Legal Standard for a Motion for Reconsideration
The FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE do not recognize motions for reconsideration. Smilde v. Mortgage Temps, Inc., 22 Fed.Appx. 957, 958 n.1 (10th Cir. 2001); Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). This Court's treatment of a motion for reconsideration depends on whether the challenged order is a final order or an interlocutory order. My September 27, 2013, Order [ECF No. 35] is an interlocutory order because it did not dispose of all claims and all parties. Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore, it is "subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties." Id.
In order to prevail on a motion to reconsider, a party must show that there is: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence that was previously unavailable; or, (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Motions to reconsider are "not to be used as a second chance when a party has failed to present its strongest case in the first instance.'" Parker v. Ritter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24991, *10 (D. Colo. 2010) (citation omitted). "Motions to reconsider are rarely appropriate." Lerner v. Sartori, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16054, *1 (D. Ariz. 1999). My decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to my sound discretion. Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
1. Bouard's ADA Claims
In my September 27, 2013, Order [ECF No. 35], I denied Ramtron's Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] as it related to Bouard's ADA discrimination claim and stated:
I find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Bouard's sensitivity qualifies as a disability under one of three definitions of disability under the ADA. Bouard's physician certified that she requires accommodation due to her sensitivity. ECF No. 27-17. Bouard requested accommodations i.e., an air purifier and a revised grooming policy which limited employee use of strong odors and fragrances in order for her to be able to concentrate on the job. Ramtron agreed. Yet, Bouard testified in her deposition that her sensitivity would not impede her ability to work and it would only affect her conditions at work. ECF No. 21-1, p. 13. Given these facts and taking into account Congress's pronouncements in the ADAAA, I find that Ramtron is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Bouard's ADA discrimination claim because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Bouard's sensitivity qualifies as a disability under the ADA.
Bouard v. Ramtron Int'l Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140649, *26-27 (D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2013). Ramtron argues that I erroneously applied controlling law and new law supports reconsideration of my ruling. Specifically, Ramtron argues ...