Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00618/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00618-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s

Restaurant, an Arizona corporation,

Defendant. _________________________________

Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara

M. Brazle, and Tamara A. Grubbs, 

 Plaintiffs/Intervenors, 

 vs.

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s

Restaurant , an Arizona corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-0618 PCT DGC

O R D E R 

The Court has received Defendant Steven Ehresman’s motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part Ehresman’s and GLC’s motions for

summary judgment. Dkt. #214. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion

for reconsideration.

The Court granted summary judgment to Ehresman on all state law counts except

those for assault and battery and punitive damages. Dkt. #212 at 17, 20. Ehresman asks the

Court to reconsider its denial of summary judgment on the question of punitive damages for

Case 3:05-cv-00618-DGC Document 217 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiffs’ state law claims. He argues that the Court’s use of the term “harassment” when

denying summary judgment on this issue shows that the Court improperly considered

conduct other than that necessary to support assault and battery claims. 

In Arizona, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must prove that defendant’s evil

hand was guided by an evil mind.” Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565, 578 (1986). Such

an evil mind may be found “where defendant intended to injure the plaintiff” or where

“defendant consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk

of significant harm to others.” Id; see also Johnson v. Pankratz, 2 P.3d 1266, 1269 (Ariz.

App. 2000) (holding that punitive damages may be appropriate in the battery context even

when no physical injury exists).

In its order, the Court found that Plaintiffs could seek redress of their alleged verbal

and physical harassment through their Title VII claims and could also recover for alleged

physical harassment through their assault and battery claims. Dkt. #212. The Court properly

treated the Title VII claims and state law claims separately. The Court did not “rely on

Plaintiffs’ respective federal Title VII claims for sexual harassment against GLC to deny

summary judgment to Ehresman on the issue of state-law punitive damages.” Dkt. #214 at 3.

The Court’s use of the term “harassment” in its discussion of state law punitive damages was

a reference to the alleged assaults and batteries. 

A jury could reasonably find that Ehresman’s repetitive and unwelcome touching of

Plaintiffs was guided by a conscious disregard for the risk that such behavior would

significantly harm Plaintiffs. It is one thing for an employee to make casual sexual remarks

in a workplace like McDonald’s. Such behavior may be redressed through a hostile work

environment suit under Title VII. It is quite another for an assistant manager over forty to

physically touch teenage employees repeatedly and inappropriately, despite clear requests

to stop. This alleged conduct led the Court to deny summary judgment on the assault and

battery claims and on the issue of punitive damages under state law. 

Ehresman attempts to minimize the severity of the alleged physical contact he made

with Plaintiffs by arguing that he did not work for long periods of time with each Plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-00618-DGC Document 217 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

and that his conduct was not severe. For example, Ehresman asserts that he worked only 48

hours with Amanda Henry and 28 hours with Tiara Brazle. Dkt. #214 at 5 n.5, 6 n.7.

Moreover, he quotes Plaintiffs’ accounts of how he touched them in inappropriate ways and

claims that the Court should deny punitive damages because such contact was not egregious.

Id. at 4-6. The Court has already reviewed these and other facts in the record and decided

that Plaintiffs’ allegations, including repeated notice to Ehresman that his physical contact

with employees was inappropriate, warrant submission of the punitive damages issue to a

jury. Dkt. #212 at 20. Motions for reconsideration should not ask the Court to rethink its

analysis. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E. D. Va. 1983)).

Moreover, this is not a case where the Court has been presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error or made a decision that was manifestly unjust, or been

apprized of an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,

Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (defining instances in which

reconsideration is appropriate). 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Ehresman’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #214)

is denied.

DATED this 28th day of November, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00618-DGC Document 217 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3