1:24-cv-01185
C.D. Ill.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Kimberly Ballard, filed a lawsuit against Ameren Illinois Company alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The claim arose from Ballard’s termination on February 26, 2018; she filed an administrative discrimination charge on August 31, 2019.
- Defendant Ameren filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred because the charge was filed after the required 300-day window.
- The court agreed and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on January 7, 2025.
- Ballard subsequently filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which is the subject of this order.
- The court now denies Ballard’s motion for reconsideration and keeps the case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA claim was timely filed | CIS filing should be considered a charge | CIS is not a charge; charge untimely | Claim is time-barred |
| Whether CIS constitutes a "charge" | CIS "implicitly requested relief" | CIS lacks required elements of charge | CIS does not constitute a charge |
| Standard for reconsideration | Decision should be revisited based on CIS | No new evidence/manifest error shown | No grounds for reconsideration |
| Rehashing prior arguments | Cites additional cases to support position | Reconsideration not for new theories | Can't relitigate or raise new issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) (describes Rule 59 standard for motions for reconsideration: newly discovered evidence or manifest error required)
- Carlson v. Christian Bros. Servs., 840 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing between a charge and a pre-charge form in administrative filings)
- Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) (motions for reconsideration not an opportunity to rehash previously rejected arguments)