United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
H. HENNESSY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mary Flowers'
motion for reconsideration (Docket #22). Defendants have
filed an opposition to the motion. (Docket #24). This matter
is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow,
the motion for reconsideration (Docket #22) is DENIED.
is a current employee of FLLAC, a nonprofit corporation that
develops and operates educational programs to serve a wide
range of students. (Docket #10-1 at 2; Docket #10-2 at 3).
One of the educational programs operated by FLLAC is the
Caldwell Alternative High School/Middle School (the
“Caldwell Alternative School”). (Docket #10-2 at
4). The Caldwell Alternative School provides educational
services to approximately forty middle to high school
students with emotional/behavioral concerns, limited academic
success, and/or specific learning disabilities.
(Id.). Flowers was hired by FLLAC in 1997 as a
paraprofessional at the Caldwell Alternative School. (Docket
#10-1 at 2).
December 3, 2012, Flowers filed a Charge of Discrimination
with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
(“MCAD”) alleging a racially hostile work
environment, and retaliation. (Id. at 2-3). The MCAD
Charge was jointly filed with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”).
(Id. at 4-5).
March 4, 2016, the MCAD made a “Lack of Probable Cause
Finding.” (Docket #10-3). Flowers appealed the decision
with the MCAD. (Docket #10-4). Following a hearing, the lack
of probable cause finding was affirmed on July 22, 2016.
(Id.). On February 24, 2017, the EEOC adopted the
findings of the MCAD, dismissed the claims, and issued a
right-to-sue letter. (Docket #10-5).
April 13, 2017, Flowers filed the instant action. (Docket
#1). In addition to suing FLACC, Flowers also sued co-workers
as individual defendants. (Id.). In the complaint,
Flower asserts the following “Statement of
Racial Harassment, the mistreatment of my complaints along
with a fals[l]ey written warning involving trickery and
neglect. Also learning 3 months later of a violent write-up
and police report filed against me.
(Docket #1 at 4 (emphasis in original)).
November 28, 2017, this court granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss. (Docket #20). The court determined that
Flowers' claims pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 151B were time-barred and that Flowers had failed to
state a claim under Title VII for either a racially hostile
work environment or retaliation. (Id.). The court
entered judgment for the Defendants the following day.
filed the instant motion on December 28, 2017. (Docket #22).
Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January
17, 2018. (Docket #24).
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may file a
motion to alter or amend a judgment; however, a party cannot
use such a motion as a vehicle “to undo its own
procedural failures” or “to advance arguments
that could and should have been presented to the district
court prior to judgment.” United States v.
Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting
Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 104 (1st
Instead, motions for reconsideration are 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 ...