Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02614/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02614-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

Wayne F. Foraker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Apollo Group, Inc. dba University 

of Phoenix, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV- 04-2614-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Amended Motion for

Reconsideration. Dkt. ##316, 325. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendant has filed a

response. Dkt. #331. 

Courts in this District have identified four circumstances under which 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 movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts

that were presented at the time of its initial decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech.

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Circumstances (1) and (2) are

potentially at issue here.

Plaintiff claims to have discovered information since his return to work that

demonstrates the falsity of testimony presented by Defendant at the May 23, 2007 hearing.

Case 2:04-cv-02614-DGC Document 333 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Plaintiff cites information he printed from a computer on June 6, 2007, suggesting that the

position classification of Senior Director of Academic Research and Effectiveness continues

to exist at Defendant. 

In response, Defendant explains that the position classification was found on its

computer system only because Plaintiff, the sole remaining holder of the position

classification, had been on leave and therefore had not been subject to changes in position

classification. Once Plaintiff returned to work and assumed the position classification of

Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, his personnel file was changed and the

company’s computer system was revised to eliminate the position classification that had been

frozen during Plaintiff’s leave. Defendant’s explanation is supported by materials attached

to its response and is consistent with the testimony provided by Tracy Bonjean during the

hearing on May 23, 2007, testimony the Court found to be credible. 

Plaintiff also asserts that position classifications affect income levels, but this

assertion is not new. Neither is it of consequence in this case; Plaintiff has been restored to

full compensation.

Although the computer print-outs presented by Plaintiff were not accessible to him

before the May 23, 2007 hearing, the Court concludes that they do not reflect “material

differences” from the evidence presented during the hearing, nor do they constitute “material

factual events” that have occurred since the hearing. The Court therefore concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary for reconsideration under circumstances

(1) and (2) of the Motorola test cited above.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #316) and

Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #325) are denied.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02614-DGC Document 333 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2