SPEARS v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. D/B/A SUR LA TABLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

HEATHER SPEARS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:21-cv-02934-TWP-MJD

)

SLT LENDING SPV, INC. d/b/a SUR LA )

TABLE1, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Heather Spears' ("Spears") post-judgment

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (the "Motion") granting Defendant SLT Lending SPV, Inc.'s

("SLT Lending") Motion to Dismiss Spears' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice (Filing

No. 74). Spears initiated this suit against SLT Lending alleging a discriminatory failure to hire

claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq ("ADA") (Filing

No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Spears' Motion.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 11, 2022, SLT Lending filed a motion to dismiss (Filing No. 50), and on March

22, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting the motion to dismiss ("Dismissal Order") (Filing

No. 72). As the Court explained, to plead a plausible failure to hire claim, Spears was required to

show "(1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for and applied to an open

position; (3) she was rejected; and (4) the employer filled the position by hiring someone outside

1 SLT Lending acquired certain assets, including the property where Spears worked, from Sur La Table's bankruptcy

estate (Filing No. 72 at 2). See Cause No. 3:20-bk-18367-MBK (D.N.J.) and styled In re SLT HOLDCO, INC., et al.

(ordering the joint administration of the Debtors' related Chapter 11 Cause No. 3:20-bk-18368-MBK (D.N.J.) and

styled In re Sur La Table, Inc.).

the protected class or left the position open." Id. at 5 (citing Oliver v. Joint Logistics Managers,

Inc., 893 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2018)).

In the Dismissal Order, the Court noted that:

[i]t is undisputed that Spears never applied for a position with SLT Lending….

[Also,] [s]ince the Second Amended Complaint provides no details about Spears'

desired position with SLT Lending, much less any allegations about her experience

or qualifications to perform the functions of that position, her ADA claim fails at

the second element as well.

Id. at 6 (citing Pafford v. Herman, 148 F.3d 658, 669 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the Court granted

the motion to dismiss and dismissed Spears' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice:

…Spears amended her Complaint twice with the only substantive change being

the identity of the defendants she accuses of discrimination (Filing No. 33; Filing

No. 41). Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because the Court does not

envision a possibility of successful amendment and, furthermore, Spears has had

multiple opportunities to plead a viable claim for failure to hire and has been

unable to do so. See Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328, 347 (7th Cir. 2012) (leave to

amend need not be granted when a party has had multiple opportunities to amend

and has failed to cure a defective claim); see Doermer v. Callen, 847 F.3d 522,

528 (7th Cir. 2017) (the court was under no obligation to allow further

amendments where doing so would be futile). Accordingly, the dismissal is with

prejudice.

(Filing No. 72 at 8).

Thereafter, on April 18, 2023, Spears filed the instant Motion (Filing No. 74), and SLT

Lending filed its Response in Opposition (Filing No. 75).

II. DISCUSSION

The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court

reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and

Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). To receive relief under Rule 59(e), the moving party "must

clearly establish (1) that the court committed manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly

discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment." Edgewood v. Manor Apartment Homes, LLC

v. RSUI Indem. Co., 733 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 2013). A "manifest error" means "wholesale

disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto v. Metro. Life Ins.

Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). Relief through a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend is

an "extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the exceptional case." Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl

Scouts of Greater Chi., 786 F.3d 510, 521 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).

Here, the Court finds that Spears' Motion lacks merit. Spears does not claim that the Court

made a manifest error of law or fact, but rather that newly discovered evidence precludes entry of

judgment (Filing No. 74). Through discovery, Defendant acquired from Sur La Table a roster of

call center employees which included Spears, and this evidence was provided in Defendants

interrogatory response. Id. at 2. Spears contends this newly discovered evidence shows that SLT

Lending retained 35 out of 37 employees from Sur La Table, at the exclusion of an African

American woman and herself. Id. at 2-3. This purported evidence only confirms what was

previously known to this Court as evidenced by Spears' Second Amended Complaint wherein she

alleged that "[w]hen Sur La Table was acquired by SLT Lending SPV, SLT Lending SPV extended

offers of employment to all (or very nearly all) of Spears' co-workers within her area." (Filing No.

41 at ¶ 19.)

Even with this "newly discovered" evidence, Spears still has not alleged facts to state a

plausible failure to hire claim. She likewise advances arguments that could have been raised in

her initial response to SLT Lending's Motion to Dismiss. Spears, for the first time, contends that

since SLT Lending did not require existing employees of Sur La Table to apply to continue

working for them that the

elements of a prima facie case of 'failure to hire' do not fit these unusual

circumstances. Instead, the 'disparate treatment' elements embodied in Federal Civil

Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, Instruction 4.02 ["Instruction 4.02"] should

apply: 1) Plaintiff is an individual with a disability; 2) she was qualified for the job;

3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) Defendant would not have

taken the same action if she had not had a disability, but everything else had been

the same.

(Filing No. 74 at 7.)

Nowhere in her Second Amended Complaint does she plead what position she held or her

qualifications for that position (Filing No. 41). She leaves the Court to assume. Arguably, Spears

is qualified for the position she previously held but the Court cannot ascertain that position from

Spears' Second Amended Complaint. Further, the Court is not convinced that Spears’ reliance on

Instruction 4.02 or any similar arguments could not have been raised when Spears responded to

SLT Lending's Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 59). In her response in opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss, Spears conceded that her discrimination claim in this lawsuit is limited to a failure-to-

hire theory. She argued "a critical question in this case will be whether Spears' co-workers were

required to apply to continue on in SLT Lending SPV, and whether Spears was required to and

failed to apply." Jd. at 3. Undoubtedly, Spears was aware of the potential that SLT Lending did

not have an application process and, in turn, could have made the argument she now makes

belatedly. Spears has had multiple opportunities to correct this and other defects in her Complaints

but has not done so. Therefore, the Court sees no basis to alter or amend the Judgment granting

SLT Lending's Motion to Dismiss Spears’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice (Filing No.

73).

I. CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, Spears' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Filing No. 74) is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: _ 6/5/2023 Qrenee Dte Leath

Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge

United States District Court

4 Southern District of Indiana

DISTRIBUTION:

Jason R. Ramsland

RAMSLAND LAW

jason@rams.land

Andrew S. Murphy

TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP

amurphy@taftlaw.com

Daniel Reza Saeedi

TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP

dsaeedi@taftlaw.com