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.

Barrington v. United Air Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 22, 2018

JAYMEE BARRINGTON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL REMEDIES

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jaymee Barrington's Motion for Post-trial Remedies, wherein Plaintiff seeks the following forms of relief:

         1. Institution of a retaliation complaint system at United Airlines to and through the year 2027 in which an independent outside ombudsman (with staff paid for by United Airlines) is assigned to all complaints of retaliation, with full authority to discipline managers found to have retaliated.

         2. Imposition of disciplinary action against Kenneth Brown, to include involuntary termination from employment at United Airlines.

         3. Removal and striking of Plaintiff's existing 2012 Year-End Rating.

         4. Replacement of Plaintiff's 2012 Year-End Rating with a revised rating stating, “Meets or Exceeds Expectations” in all categories.

         5. Removal and reversal of Kenneth Brown's United Airlines' decision that Plaintiff is ineligible for promotion, and promotion of Plaintiff to the next available temporary manager upgrade position; and

         6. Front pay in the sum of $20, 000.[1]

         Defendant United Airlines objects to these requests, and for the following reasons, the Court denies them.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff fails to identify any procedural or jurisdictional mechanism that supports the relief she seeks. Because she is requesting that this Court alter, and essentially add to, the final judgment on the merits in this case, the Court finds that her motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).[2] Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[A] motion will be considered under Rule 59(e), when it involves reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

         “A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only “to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 1324 (quoting Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1523 (10th Cir.1992)). A Rule 59(e) motion is directed at reconsideration “of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits, and not initial consideration.” White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982). The district court has broad discretion when deciding a Rule 59(e) motion, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

         II. DISCUSSION

         None of Plaintiff's contentions warrant altering, or adding to, the judgment in this case. The ...


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.