IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BETTY J. BLUE : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

:

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, :

DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CTR.:

DLA/DSCP, : NO. 04-2210

Defendant. :

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. July 14, 2005

On June 9, 2004, this Court denied pro se Plaintiff, Betty

Blue’s, motion for summary judgment and granted Defendant,

Secretary of the Department of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld’s crossmotion for summary judgment. Ms. Blue now moves the court to

reconsider. For the following reasons, that motion will be

denied. 

Reconsideration should be granted if the moving party can

show: 1) an intervening change in controlling law, 2) evidence

not available when the court entered summary judgment has

recently become available, or 3) there is a need to correct a

clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See North

River Ins. Co., v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d

Cir. 1995). The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue

matters already decided or to relitigate a point of disagreement

between the Court and the parties. Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ.

Case 2:04-cv-02210-JF Document 22 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 5
2

A. 99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761 at *9 (E.D. Pa. 2001). Ms. Blue’s

motion to reconsider does little more than restate the arguments

she advanced in her motion for summary judgment. She does not

present a manifest injustice or any clear errors of law or fact. 

In the only new argument raised in her motion to reconsider,

Ms. Blue contends that Defendants’ cases are inapplicable because

they pre-date the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991. This

argument fails because the enactment of a statute does not

automatically nullify all prior case law. 

In her complaint, Ms. Blue failed to allege facts sufficient

to establish a claim for employment discrimination. Ms. Blue

alleged she and others suffered gender and race discrimination

while employed at Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), a

buying activity of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under the

Department of Defense (DOD). She brought her claim under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act and asked this Court to certify a

class including all African American females occupying positions

within grade levels General Schedule (GS) 6 through GS-12 at the

DSCP. 

Ms. Blue’s claim for failure to promote her to Contract

Specialist GS-12 in 1999 is the only claim for which she

exhausted all her administrative remedies as required by Title

VII. To properly state a claim for employment discrimination

under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: 1) she is a member of a

protected class, 2) she was qualified for a particular position

or promotion , 3) she was rejected for the position or promotion,

Case 2:04-cv-02210-JF Document 22 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 5
3

and 4) individuals not of plaintiff’s protected class were

treated more favorably. See Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr &

Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 522 (3d Cir. 1992). 

As an African American female, Ms. Blue is a member of two

protected classes. For present purposes, we can assume her

referral for an interview indicates she was qualified for the

position. Ms. Blue was not promoted to this position. However,

she fails to allege that the position was given to a similarly

situated applicant not of Ms. Blue’s protected classes; in fact,

Ms. Blue states another African American woman filled one of the

two available positions. While Ms. Blue does make several

general claims of discrimination, she fails to assert facts upon

which a reasonable jury could find in her favor. 

Despite Ms. Blue’s noble efforts to champion the rights of

victims of discrimination, I cannot grant her request for class

certification. To be certified, a class must satisfy the

following requirements listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): 1)

numerosity, 2) commonality, 3) typicality, and 4) adequacy of

representation. Once those requirements are met, one seeking

class certification must also satisfy one of the requirements of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Ms. Blue has not sufficiently stated her

own claim; therefore, she cannot satisfy the commonality and

typicality requirements. More significantly, Ms. Blue is acting

pro se and cannot adequately represent the class. Despite Ms.

Blue’s earnest attempts, it would be unjust to bind other members

Case 2:04-cv-02210-JF Document 22 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 5
4

of the proposed class to the efforts of a pro se plaintiff. 

Because she does not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(a), I need not consider whether she meets one of the Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b) requirements.

An Order follows. 

Case 2:04-cv-02210-JF Document 22 Filed 07/15/05 Page 4 of 5
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BETTY J. BLUE : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

:

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, :

DEFENSE PERSONNEL SUPPORT CTR.:

DLA/DSCP, : NO. 04-2210

Defendant. :

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of July 2005, upon consideration

of Plaintiff’s “Request for Reconsideration,” the response

thereto, and this Court’s decision dated June 9, 2005, it is

hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

/s/John P. Fullam, Sr. J. 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:04-cv-02210-JF Document 22 Filed 07/15/05 Page 5 of 5