The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge
On June 4, 2004, I granted Defendant Illinois Department of
Employment Security's (IDES) motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiff Lucille Rowels's Equal Pay Act claim. In short, I found
that Rowels could not establish that the difference in her
starting salary, as compared to four male counterparts, was based
on sex, especially since IDES presented extensive and
uncontroverted evidence that the difference in starting salaries
was due to the candidates' previous work experience and existing
In response, Rowels has filed this motion for reconsideration.
It is well settled that motions for reconsideration are not
appropriate vehicles to advance arguments already rejected by the
court or new legal theories not argued before the ruling.
Schartle v. Motorola, Inc., No, 93 C 5508, 1994 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8587 at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 1994); In re Oil Spill by
"Amoco Cadiz" Off Coast of France, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D.
Ill. 1992). Yet, this is essentially what Rowels does here. The
arguments asserted by Rowels in this motion are either repeats of
arguments made in her Response to IDES's motion for summary
judgment, which I have already ruled upon, or they are entirely
new legal theories brought for the first time in this motion.
Since these arguments are improperly brought here, I am denying
I would also deny Rowels's motion on the grounds that her newly
presented arguments are woefully underdeveloped and, as such, are
deemed waived. Moehring v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 00
C 4234, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22367 at fn.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 14,
2001) (citing Spath v. Hayes Wheel Int'l-Ind. Inc.,
211 F.3d 392, 397 (7th Cir. 2000). Rowels's arguments are presented in
format that does not sufficiently disclose their content, factual
basis, or connection to the record. While such shortcomings may
be excused in many pro se cases, they will not be excused here
since Rowels is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state
For these reasons, Rowels's Motion for Reconsideration is
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...