856 F. Supp. 2d 99
D.D.C.2012Background
- Moses, a retired GAO employee, sues alleging ADEA discrimination related to 2006 Band II restructuring into A and B categories.
- He was placed in the lower-paying Band IIB category and missed the 2006 COLA.
- GAO restructuring claimed to realign staff to reduce senior Band II numbers.
- Plaintiff asserts 2006 COLA denial was due to age discrimination.
- This action followed a 2006 filing and prior rulings; Lilly Ledbetter Act briefing occurred in 2009.
- Court denied reconsideration of summary judgment and discovery rulings in a 2012 memorandum opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied reconsideration | Moses argues clear error in misapprehension of responses | Dodaro contends standard and reasoning were correct | Denied reconsideration |
| Whether discovery denial should be altered | Requests liberal discovery under Rule 26/34 | Discretionary and not a basis for reconsideration | Denied reconsideration on discovery |
| Whether Lilly Ledbetter Act affects proceeding | Act changes governing pay discrimination apply | Act known earlier; not controlling change | Not a basis to alter judgment |
| Whether new FOIA data constitutes new material fact | FOIA bonuses data could show age-related motive | Data received before judgment; not exculpatory | Not sufficient to warrant reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2001) (standard for Rule 59(e) relief—extraordinary circumstances)
- Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (control of relief requires intervening law or new evidence)
- New York v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1995) (Rule 59(e) not for new arguments)