Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Horizon Distributors, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1984-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g)(1).

Dkt. #123. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its June 23, 2009 order granting

summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims.

Dkt. #120. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background.

In August of 2007, Plaintiff applied to be a Credit Manager with Defendant. After

several interviews and communications, Defendant made Plaintiff a conditional offer of

employment and requested that Plaintiff submit to a background check. Dkt. #109 ¶¶ 184-85.

When Plaintiff was advised that his background check required further investigation, Plaintiff

for the first time disclosed that there were twelve felony charges pending against him in

Maricopa County Superior Court for accepting unemployment payments while he was

employed. Id. ¶ 186. Plaintiff explained that he had accepted the payments on the basis of

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 125 Filed 08/07/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

inaccurate information given to him by a Department of Economic Security employee. Id.

¶ 187. On September 25, 2007, Plaintiff was told that his job offer was being rescinded

based on the information he had provided about receiving unemployment checks while

working. Id. ¶ 191. 

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging race discrimination and retaliation claims. Dkt. #6.

On June 23, 2009, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining discrimination claims because Plaintiff failed to

demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason proffered by Defendant for

terminating Plaintiff’s offer of employment was actually a pretext for race discrimination.

Dkt. #120. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider this ruling on the basis of issues that

were “grossly overlooked and misapprehended” by the Court. Dkt. #123. 

II. Legal standard.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008) (citing Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

reconsideration. See id. (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D.

Haw. 1988)). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court

to rethink its analysis. See id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116

(D. Ariz. 1998)); see also N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918,

925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision,

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 125 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 4
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 -

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g.,

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

III. Analysis.

Plaintiff first asserts that the Court should have submitted this case to a jury because

Plaintiff demonstrated pretext by showing that Defendant’s proffered explanation for the

termination of his job offer is unworthy of credence. Dkt. #123 at 3. Plaintiff contends that

he met his burden because Defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation is “so

incredible that only a jury can decide” whether it is credible. Plaintiff claims the Court

overlooked evidence of pretext by failing to mention that Plaintiff’s conduct in accepting

unemployment payments occurred twelve years before the job offer was revoked. The Court

is aware that the conduct occurred in 1995. This fact does not amount to the specific and

substantial evidence of pretext needed to create a triable issue with respect to whether the

employer intended to discriminate. Dkt. #120 at 6 (citing Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150

F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

Plaintiff also asserts that the Court failed to consider his statistical evidence in support

of pretext. Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment, however, used the

statistical evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination outside of the McDonnell

Douglas context, not in support of pretext. Dkt. #108 at 7; see also Dkt. #120 at 5 n. 3. The

Court assumed that Plaintiff established a prima facie case. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s argument that

the statistics support a finding of pretext is a new argument not permitted in a motion for

reconsideration. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider the statistical evidence on the

question of pretext it would at most be circumstantial evidence. None of it relates to the

events at issue in this case or the reasons provided by Defendant for withdrawing Plaintiff’s

offer – concern for Plaintiff’s judgment in accepting unemployment checks while employed,

leading to a 12-count indictment. As circumstantial evidence of pretext, the statistics do not

constitute the specific and substantial evidence needed to create a triable issue of fact. See

Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1222. 

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 125 Filed 08/07/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

In the remaining sections of his motion, Plaintiff reiterates arguments and facts

presented in his brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff states

numerous facts that he alleges demonstrate that Defendant did not have proper procedures

in place to prevent discrimination. Dkt. #123 at 7-9. Plaintiff claims that the Court failed

to recognize that Defendant asserts the job offer was revoked because of Plaintiff’s poor

decision-making skills, not because of the twelve pending felony charges. Id. at 9. Plaintiff

further quotes sections of the Court’s June 23, 2009 order and explains why Plaintiff believes

they are incorrect. Plaintiff fails to address new facts or law. All of the information cited by

Plaintiff was provided in Plaintiff’s summary judgment brief and considered by the Court.

 Plaintiff further argues that the Court should not have stricken his surreply filed

without leave of Court and should not have denied his motion for sanctions. Dkt. #123 at 14-

15. The Court will not alter its ruling on either matter. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #123) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 125 Filed 08/07/09 Page 4 of 4