Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01824-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

*E-FILED 12/14/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY NEAL GRIMES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-01824 RS

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gregory Neal Grimes moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting partial

summary judgment in favor of defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) on his Eighth claim for

relief, which sought to impose liability against UPS based on its allegedly discriminatory failure to

rehire him. As explained below, the motion will be denied because Grimes has failed to show a

sufficient basis for reconsideration exists.

 II. BACKGROUND

This action arises from the termination of Grimes’ employment with UPS in early February

of 2002, after Grimes had been on disability leave for 12 continuous months. Grimes contends,

among other things, that under UPS’s policies, he had until the end of the month in February of 

2002 to resume work, and that his termination earlier in that month was therefore inappropriate. 

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 300 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 At the hearing, Grimes asserted that he previously only had evidence of a very few other

job openings that he had located through his own internet research. In fact, Grimes’ opposition to

the motion also cited testimony and exhibits produced in the deposition of a UPS human resources

manager. 

2

Grimes argues that when he attempted to raise that issue, UPS gave him some assurances that he

could be rehired. 

Both parties moved for partial summary judgment. Relevant here is the Court’s oral ruling in

favor of defendants on Grime’s eighth claim for relief: The Court stated: “Count 8, the

discriminatory or retaliatory failure to rehire, I’m granting that motion. There’s no evidence that the

stated reason for failure are [sic] to rehire, the lack of the job openings, was pretextural [sic].” 

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, which precludes parties from seeking reconsideration without

leave of court, Grimes requested such leave, asserting that UPS had produced evidence after the

prior ruling that would support a different result. The Court granted Grimes’s request for leave to

seek reconsideration, which lead to this proceeding. 

III. DISCUSSION

Grimes sought, and was granted, leave to move for reconsideration based on his assertions

that: (1) the Court’s order granting summary judgment on the eighth claim for relief was premised

on the notion that UPS had no job openings for which Grimes would have qualified in the relevant

time period, and (2) documents produced by UPS after the summary judgment ruling show that,

contrary to what UPS argued when seeking summary judgment, UPS had many job openings for

which he was qualified. 

The “new” evidence of other jobs openings within UPS does not warrant reconsideration. 

By his own admission, Grimes made the argument in the prior proceedings that there was abundant

evidence of jobs that he could have taken. See Motion for Reconsideration at 16:14-17:10 (citing

opposition to motion for summary judgment at 8:9-22, “Rather, there were many jobs at UPS that

this highly-experienced, hard-working, capable employee could fill.”)1

 In the prior proceedings,

UPS never suggested that it had no job openings anywhere within its operations for which Grimes

might be qualified. Rather, UPS specifically argued that its manager who was interacting with

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 300 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Grimes made efforts to determine whether UPS had any job openings at the level and in the

particular geographic regions he believed Grimes wanted. With one exception, Grimes’s “new”

evidence at most further supports his contention that there were other jobs in other places for which

he was qualified, but it does not rise to a level that warrants a different result.

The one piece of evidence that is not merely cumulative to that considered in the prior

proceeding is the fact, apparently not disclosed before the summary judgment hearing, that the

person who occupied Grimes’s last position with UPS resigned shortly after Grimes first asked to be

rehired. UPS’s failure to disclose this fact is somewhat troubling, particularly in light of affirmative

representations it made such as “Grimes’ prior position . . . had already been filled.”

Nevertheless, UPS is correct that there is no evidence that it ever filled the position that

Grimes had previously held, after the resignation of his successor. Nor is there any other evidence

undermining the conclusion that UPS reasonably determined it had no appropriate job opening to

offer to Grimes.

Section B of Grimes’s moving papers and almost all of his reply brief is devoted to arguing

that the Court could and should have concluded there was a triable issue of fact as to whether UPS

discriminated against him when considering his request to be re-employed. Virtually none of that

argument, however, is tied to any evidence that was not, or could not have been, presented in the

prior proceeding. As such, none of those arguments supports reconsideration.

IV. CONCLUSION

 Grimes has failed to show any material difference between the present factual record and

the evidence upon which the Court previously ruled. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 300 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

C 05-01824 RS

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Claudia Center ccenter@las-elc.org, lbossing@las-elc.org, lkapros@las-elc.org

Kathryn Burkett Dickson kbdickson@dicksonross.com, courtmail@boxerlaw.com,

pwach@dicksonross.com

Thomas E. Geidt tomgeidt@paulhastings.com, jeffsmith@paulhastings.com

Gregory Neal Grimes Gngrimes65@aol.com

E. Jeffrey Grube , Esq jeffgrube@paulhastings.com, patricialawson@paulhastings.com

Kerri N. Harper kerriharper@paulhastings.com, jeffsmith@paulhastings.com

Leslie Fran Levy courtmail@boxerlaw.com

Sana Swe sanaswe@paulhastings.com, daliaromhill@sbcglobal.net

Maurice Kirby Collette Wilcox kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com, janetgogna@paulhastings.com

Julie Anne Wilkinson JulieWilkinson@paulhastings.com, helendevol@paulhastings.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 12/14/07 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 300 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4