The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 27, 2022
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOE MITCHELL, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-20-3716
§
TEXAS FARM BUREAU, et al., §
§
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
After an extensive interview process, Joe Mitchell was not hired as a sales representative
for the Texas Farm Bureau. He sued Texas Farm Bureau, Texas Farm Bureau Insurance
Companies, Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual
Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters, and Farm Bureau County Mutual
Insurance Company of Texas (collectively, “Texas Farm Bureau”) for age discrimination under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and under Chapter 21 of the
Texas Labor Code, also known as the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
The court granted summary judgment for Texas Farm Bureau. (Docket Entry No. 57).
Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court found that Mitchell made
a prima facie showing that he was qualified for the job, and that Texas Farm Bureau had proffered
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to not hire him—Mitchell lacked direct, commission-based
sales experience—and Mitchell pointed to no factual dispute material to determining whether the
proffered reason was pretextual. Because Mitchell could not point to summary judgment evidence
that could support an inference of pretext and discrimination, Texas Farm Bureau was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
Mitchell now moves under Rule 59(e) for a new trial. (Docket Entry No. 59). “[A] motion
to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of
law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments
which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.’” Rosenzweig v. Azurix
Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (Sth Cir. 2003) (quoting reference omitted). Mitchell offers no new
evidence, no intervening change in law, and no manifest legal error. Instead, Mitchell largely
copied and pasted his briefing on summary Judgment in his Rule 59(e) motion. Compare (Docket
Entry No. 30), with (Docket Entry No. 59). He argues, as he did on summary judgment, that Texas
Farm Bureau did not show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring him. Repeating
previously rejected arguments is not a basis for relief under Rule 59(e). Mitchell’s Rule 59(e)
motion is denied.
SIGNED on September 27, 2022, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge