United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider 
filed by Defendant City of Hattiesburg. After considering the
submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that this motion is not well taken and
should be denied.
Dana Coleman (“Plaintiff”) was employed by
Defendant City of Hattiesburg (the “City”) from
2012 until 2016, as the office manager for Municipal Court
Judge Jerry Evans (“Judge Evans”). Her position
required her to work directly with Faye Hicks
(“Hicks”), the municipal clerk. The deputy clerks
of the municipal court answered to both Hicks and Plaintiff.
Plaintiff and Judge Evans are white. Hicks and
of the deputy clerks are African American.
September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against
Defendants the City and former Mayor Johnny Dupree
“Defendants”), alleging that she had been the
victim of racial harassment and bringing claims under Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and state law
claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. She later filed an Amended Complaint , alleging
that, because of this ongoing harassment, she was forced to
quit her job, and adding a claim of constructive discharge.
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment  on December 14,
2017. The Court ruled on this motion on January 24, 2018,
leaving only the following claims pending against the
City: the hostile work environment claim under
Title VII, the constructive discharge claim under Title VII,
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the
negligent infliction of emotional distress. The City now
challenges the Court's ruling in its Motion to Reconsider
Standard of Review
motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling is
evaluated . . . as a motion . . . under Rule 59(e) . . .
[when] filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of
judgment . . . .” Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). The
City's Motion to Reconsider  falls within this
twenty-eight day time period.
Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.” Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). There are three grounds for
altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e): “(1)
an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” Williamson Pounders Architects, P.C. v.
Tunica Cnty., Miss., 681 F.Supp.2d 766, 767 (N.D. Miss.
2008). The City argues that the Court must reconsider its
ruling to correct a clear error of law and prevent manifest
59(e) motions are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of judgment, ”
Templet, 367 F.3d at 478, and they “should not
be used to . . . re-urge matters that have already been
advanced by a party.” Nationalist Movement v. Town
of Jena, 321 F.App'x 359, 364 (5th Cir. 2009).
Reconsideration of a previous order is “an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
Id. Before filing a Rule 59(e) motion, parties
“should evaluate whether what may seem to be a clear
error of law is in fact simply a point of disagreement”
with the Court. Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co.,
130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990).
Hostile Work Environment Claim
City insists that this is a “reverse
discrimination” case and implies that the burden in
such cases is heavier than those in other Title VII cases. It
further contends that the Court should have addressed the
hostile work environment claim through analogy to other
similar cases and not, as the Court did, evaluate the facts
of this case solely on their own merit.
City gives no supporting law that supports its contention
that a “reverse discrimination” case should be
more difficult to meet than any other case brought under
Title VII, and the Court has never held that a heavier burden
exists for what the ...