United States District Court, D. Columbia.
ROBERT L. MORE, et al., Plaintiffs,
JACOB E. LEW, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Defendant
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For Robert L. More, Arthur Haynesworth, Nathaniel S. Taylor, Plaintiffs: Lawrence B. Manley, LEAD ATTORNEY, PATRICK HENRY LLP, Lanham , MD.
For Charles E. Hughes, Plaintiff: Gerald L. Gilliard, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICE OF GERALD L. GILLIARD, ESQ., LLC, Washington , DC.
For Paul O'Neill, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Defendant: Jane M. Lyons, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington , DC; Brian Christopher Baldrate, GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP, Washington , DC.
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Relief fro Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3). Plaintiff Charles E. Hughes, along with six other plaintiffs, brought individual actions under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (" ADEA" ), 29 U.S.C. § § 631 et seq. against the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. Plaintiffs alleged that they were discriminated against on the basis of their age with respect to various promotion decisions made by their employer, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (" BEP" ) within the Department of the Treasury. Upon consideration of the motion, the entire record, the applicable law, and for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
The background of this case is fully set forth in More v. Snow, 480 F.Supp.2d 257 (D.D.C. 2007). Briefly, Plaintiffs, including Mr. Hughes, alleged that the BEP discriminated against them with respect to promotions between 1997 and 2003, during which time the BEP promoted officers under the age of 40 for each position Plaintiffs applied for. Id. at 263. After extensive discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that Plaintiffs' claims failed on their merits. Id. at 261. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to all but two of the challenged promotion decisions. Id. at 271-73. With respect to Mr. Hughes specifically, the Court found that he had alleged a prima facie case of age discrimination regarding a 2001 promotion decision, and that he could argue pretext for the non-discriminatory reasons for the decision offered by Defendant. Id. at 274.
The Court conducted a bench trial on the remaining claims in early 2008, and entered final judgment for defendants on July 28, 2008. See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. A, Tr. of Ruling. In so doing, the Court held the Plaintiffs had failed to present competent evidence of intentional age discrimination sufficient to rebut Defendant's non-discriminatory reason for the two promotion decisions being ...