Stringer v. Home Depot

2018 DNH 116

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: June 12, 2018
• Docket: 16-cv-150-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Barbara J. Stringer

v. Civil No. 16-cv-150-JD Opinion No. 2018 DNH 116 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

O R D E R

Barbara J. Stringer, who is proceeding pro se, brought

claims against her former employer, Home Depot, arising from the

treatment she received during her employment and the

circumstances of her termination. Summary judgment was entered

against Stringer on all claims. She now moves for

reconsideration. Home Depot objects.

Standard of Review

Granting reconsideration of an order is “‘an extraordinary

remedy which should be used sparingly.’” Palmer v. Champion

Mtg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting 11 Charles Alan

Wright et al., 11 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.

1995)). For that reason, reconsideration is “appropriate only in

a limited number of circumstances: if the moving party presents

newly discovered evidence, if there has been an intervening

change in the law, or if the movant can demonstrate that the original decision was based on a manifest error of law or was

clearly unjust.” United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st

Cir. 2009).

A motion for reconsideration cannot succeed when the moving

party is attempting “to undo its own procedural failures” or

“advanc[ing] arguments that could and should have been presented

earlier.” Id. A motion for reconsideration also is not a means

to reargue matters that were considered and rejected in the

previous order. Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925,

930 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Discussion

Stringer contends that the order granting summary judgment

must be reconsidered because material factual disputes exist.1

She argues that the court incorrectly determined that Peter

Tavano did not make the termination decision by himself. She

also argues that the Investigation Review Summary creates a

material factual dispute about the reason for her termination.

Home Depot contends that the motion must be denied because

Stringer has not met the standard for reconsideration.

1 Stringer did not address the standard for a motion for reconsideration. As a result, she made no argument or showing that she met those requirements.

2 A. Termination Decision

The record presented for purposes of summary judgment showed

that Peter Tavano, the manager of the Home Depot Store where

Stringer worked, recommended to Home Depot’s Associate Advice and

Counsel Group that Stringer’s employment should be terminated.

After an investigation, the Group, comprised of human resource

professionals at Home Depot, agreed with Tavano’s recommendation.

Tavano then terminated Stringer’s employment.

For purposes of reconsideration, Stringer cites deposition

testimony of Frances Cianci, who was a member of the Group, to

argue that Tavano, alone, made the decision to terminate her.2

Cianci testified that the store manager makes the final

termination decision, based on the recommendation of the Group.

Cianci’s testimony shows that Tavano’s decision was based on the

recommendation of the Group, as the evidence showed for purposes

of summary judgment.

While it might have been possible for Tavano to decide not

to terminate Stringer’s employment, despite the recommendation of

2Home Depot presented evidence about the termination process in support of the motion for summary judgment. See Doc. no. 41-1, ¶¶ 68-72. Stringer did not contest the facts presented by Home Depot or argue that Cianci’s testimony showed a different process. As such, her new argument is not appropriate in a motion for reconsideration. Further, whether or not Tavano made the termination decision, Stringer provided no evidence that she was terminated for any reason other than poor performance.

3 the Group, he chose to follow the Group’s recommendation.

Cianci’s deposition testimony shows that the termination process

was collaborative, not unilateral. Therefore, Cianci’s testimony

does not create a material factual dispute about the process used

in Stringer’s termination.

B. Investigation Review Summary

Stringer argues, as she did in her objection to summary

judgment, that the Investigation Review Summary shows at least a

factual dispute about why she was terminated. Stringer’s theory

was thoroughly considered and addressed at the hearing on the

motion for summary judgment and in the order granting summary

judgment. See Order, doc. no. 65, at 16-17 & 22. The

investigation Review Summary does not provide evidence that she

was terminated because of her gender, or for any other

inappropriate reason. She provides no new evidence or law to

support reconsideration of that issue.

C. Reconsideration

As is noted above, the standard for granting a motion for

reconsideration is difficult to meet. Stringer has not shown

that reconsideration is appropriate in this case.

4 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 68) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

June 12, 2018

cc: M. Amy Carlin, Esq. Jeffrey S. Siegel, Esq. Barbara J. Stringer, pro se