Yelle v. Mount St. Mary College

Background

John Yelle sued Mount St. Mary College under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related New York Human Rights Law provisions. He alleged age- and gender-based discrimination concerning the College’s failure to hire him for a full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professor of Accounting position in 2017 and its decision not to renew his adjunct professor contract. Yelle’s Title VII and related state-law claims had previously been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

After discovery ended, the College moved for summary judgment on Yelle’s age-discrimination claims. On November 5, 2020, the court granted that motion and entered judgment for the College. The court concluded that Yelle had not presented evidence establishing a required initial showing of age discrimination because the employment actions did not arise under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

The court also ruled that allegations concerning a search for a visiting professor position were not properly before it. Neither Yelle’s complaint nor his charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission mentioned that search. The court held that those allegations were not reasonably related to the allegations in the charge and therefore could not be considered in the case.

Reconsideration Motions

Yelle filed a document called a “First Motion for Reconsideration” on December 1, 2020, seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, but the motion must be filed within 28 days after judgment. The first filing was within that 28-day period, but it did not include a notice of motion identifying the rules or statutes under which the motion was brought.

Yelle later filed a “Second Motion for Reconsideration” on January 16, 2021. That filing included the notice of motion missing from the first filing, but it was filed more than 28 days after the November 5 judgment. The court therefore found that the Rule 59(e) motion was procedurally defective and could be denied on that basis.

Merits of Reconsideration Request

The court alternatively considered the substance of Yelle’s request and found it insufficient. A Rule 59(e) motion is an extraordinary remedy, not a way to relitigate arguments, introduce new theories, or obtain a second hearing on issues already decided. Relief generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

The court determined that Yelle was again arguing that the visiting-professor allegations were sufficiently related to his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. The court had already considered and rejected that argument after reviewing the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, supplemental letters, and cited authorities. Yelle did not identify a controlling legal change, previously unavailable evidence, or a clear error causing manifest injustice.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Yelle’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The clerk was instructed to terminate ECF No. 63. The opinion does not state that this denial was with or without prejudice.