Opinion ID: 2771327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Alter Judgment

Text: The workers also argue that the district court erred in denying their request to reconsider the judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). We grant Rule 59(e) relief when the original judgment evidenced a manifest error of law, if there is newly discovered evidence, or in certain other narrow situations. Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925, 930 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation and quotations omitted). The workers' only articulated basis for appealing the denial of the motion to reconsider is the permitting of the evidence which was not properly before the Court. While the workers do not elaborate on what evidence they refer to, based on discussion earlier in their brief, we assume they object to the district court's apparent reliance on deposition testimony stating that Berlingeri received negative employee evaluations from the workers' direct supervisors. The workers contend that this testimony evidence would be inadmissible. Whether the district court considered inadmissible hearsay to resolve the causation question is an orthogonal issue, given that we are affirming on other of this case's shortfalls. We needn't say more on the point. -18-