Tenemille v. Town Of Ramapo

Background

Ernst Theodore Tenemille, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Town of Ramapo and several individual defendants. He alleged race, color, national-origin, and religious discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

In a January 13, 2022 opinion and order, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims with prejudice except the hostile-work-environment claims, which it dismissed without prejudice because that was the first adjudication of those claims on the merits. The court allowed Tenemille to file a fifth amended complaint within 30 days.

Instead of filing that complaint, Tenemille filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), along with supporting materials. The defendants opposed the motion, and Tenemille filed a reply.

Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)

Rule 59(e) requires a motion to alter or amend a judgment to be filed no later than 28 days after judgment. Tenemille filed his motion 30 days after judgment. The court held that it could not waive the federal deadline and noted that he also failed to comply with the shorter deadline in the local reconsideration rule.

Because the motion was untimely under Rule 59(e), the court recharacterized it as a motion under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment or order in specified circumstances. The court considered possible relief based on mistake under Rule 60(b)(1) and extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).

Analysis

The court declined to consider Tenemille’s new exhibits because he did not claim that they were previously unavailable or unobtainable. It also concluded that his arguments largely repeated matters already presented or introduced new arguments that were not properly raised in the original motion-to-dismiss proceedings.

The court rejected Tenemille’s claims that it had misstated facts about a police investigation, his sick days, and events leading to his firing. It also rejected his arguments concerning allegedly similarly situated officers, explaining that his allegations did not show that those officers were similarly situated in all material respects. The court stated that his arguments about the Rockland County Police Act, a labor contract, and a hearing officer were not claims brought in the operative complaint and were not material to this proceeding.

The court further rejected Tenemille’s contention that the defendants had conceded that he established a preliminary discrimination case. It determined that the defendants had only agreed that his firing was the relevant adverse event, not that he had satisfied the requirements for a discrimination claim. The court also found that a new argument based on the continuing-violation doctrine did not establish a mistake and, in any event, did not change the court’s earlier conclusion about the investigation and firing.

The court found no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because Tenemille had not shown a substantive legal or factual mistake in the earlier order. It also found no extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Tenemille’s motion. The court stated that the hostile-work-environment claims remained dismissed without prejudice. It advised that any fifth amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the prior complaints and would need to include all claims, factual allegations, and exhibits Tenemille wanted the court to consider. It also stated that he could not bring claims already dismissed with prejudice, including claims against the individual defendants, claims against the Ramapo Police Department, specified punitive-damages claims, and discriminatory-workplace or retaliation claims under Title VII and § 1983. The court stated that the action would be dismissed with prejudice if Tenemille failed to meet the 30-day deadline.