United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE
entry of summary judgment, plaintiff Sharif Hamzah once again
seeks to revive his breach of contract claim against
defendant Woodman’s Food Market, Inc.
(“Woodman’s”), with a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying
him leave to amend. (Dkt. #81.) As explained in the
court’s previous order addressing plaintiff’s
breach of contract claim, a party seeking to alter or amend a
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must
“present either newly discovered evidence or establish
a manifest error of law or fact.” Oto v. Metro.
Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief under the former
route, asserting that “[n]ew evidence discovered during
the depositions of Martinson and Bemis permit a jury to
reasonably conclude, using the newly discovered
Woodman’s definition of what constitutes disobeying a
supervisor’s order, that Martinson decided to discharge
Hamzah because he inferred, without any supporting evidence,
that Hamzah disobeyed [supervisor Jacob] Bemis’
order.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. (dkt. #87) at 5.)
supposed new evidence is now offered to overcome the
court’s finding that Hamzah was fired for committing a
Group I violation for insubordination, which the court
already addressed in detail in its earlier opinions in this
case. Specifically, Hamzah asserts he was until recently
unaware that Woodman’s does not consider an employee to
be insubordinate if he responds “no” to a
supervisor’s command to do something yet “then
[goes] on [to] comply with the supervisor’s order
through his actions.” (Id. at 8.) This
newfound knowledge is apparently the product of the following
exchange at the deposition of Dale Martinson, the individual
who made the ultimate decision to fire Hamzah:
Q: What if the employee actually did the job after that, told
a supervisor no, just because he wanted to -- he wanted to
resist, and then he actually followed the order?
A: That’s insubordination to the supervisor.
Q: Even if he actually followed the order?
A: The order was not to do a job.
Q: Right. And if -- A: Pulling the carts off the wall. If he
continued to do it, in my book, that’s insubordination.
Q: What if he said “no” and then stopped?
A: If he said “no” and he stopped doing it?
A: Then he’s fine.
Q: So that’s not ...