United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jaymee
Barrington's Motion for Post-trial Remedies, wherein
Plaintiff seeks the following forms of relief:
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.
Imposition of disciplinary action against Kenneth Brown, to
include involuntary termination from employment at United
Removal and striking of Plaintiff's existing 2012
Replacement of Plaintiff's 2012 Year-End Rating with a
revised rating stating, “Meets or Exceeds
Expectations” in all categories.
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
Front pay in the sum of $20, 000.
United Airlines objects to these requests, and for the
following reasons, the Court denies them.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). 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
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.
Plaintiff's contentions warrant altering, or adding to,
the judgment in this case. The ...