Squire v. Identity, Inc., No. 8:2020cv02062 - Document 55 (D. Md. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 12/16/2021. (dg3s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Squire v. Identity, Inc. Doc. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DEIDRAR.SQUIRE, Plaintiff. V. Civil No. 20-2062 PJM IDENTITY,INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Deidra Squire brought this action against her former employer Identity, Inc. ("Identity") and four ofits employees, making various employment discrimination claims, including a claim that she was discriminatorily terminated from her job in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil • Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, er ("Title YII"). Compl.^ 12, EOF No. 1. Identity filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to all claims. EOF No. 14. The Court previously granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss, allowing Squire to amend her Complaint, specifically as to her claim of disparate treatment under Title VII, ECF No.25. Squire then filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No.27, and Identity again moved to dismiss,ECF No. 30("Second Motion to Dismiss"). On August 18,2021, by oral opinion rendered after a motions hearing, the Court granted Identity's Second Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 43,44. Squire has now filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Court'sjudgment, claiming that the dismissal of her Amended Complaint was clearly erroneous. ECF No.48. For the reasons that follow, her Motion is DENIED. Squire's Motion,filed within twenty-eight days of the Order dismissing her Amended Complaint, is a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC,599 F.3d 403,412(4th Cir. 2010). The Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for amending an earlier judgment:(1)to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;(2)to account for new evidence not available at trial; or(3)to correct a clear error oflaw or prevent Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
