549 F. App'x 347
6th Cir.2013Background
- Powell-Pickett, a former AK Steel employee, sues for race- and gender-based discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and FMLA violations.
- At her third deposition, she repeatedly claimed to not recall key facts or prior statements about alleged mistreatment.
- AK Steel moved for summary judgment; Powell-Pickett later submitted an affidavit contradicting sworn deposition testimony.
- The district court struck the affidavit as inconsistent with deposition and granted summary judgment to AK Steel.
- Powell-Pickett previously worked as a replacement during a lockout and lost a promotion to a black female replacement in 2008.
- The complaint alleges extreme harassment (noose, urination, profanity) and other mistreatment, but evidence is sparse and contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly struck the affidavit and granted summary judgment | Powell-Pickett argues affidavit supplements memory gaps, not contradicts deposition. | AK Steel contends affidavit contradicts sworn deposition and creates no genuine issue. | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; no genuine material disputes. |
| Whether the harassment claim survives under hostile work environment | Powell-Pickett asserts coworker harassment and discriminatory environment. | Harassment is not shown as severe or pervasive; reporting gaps undermine claims. | Harassment claim fails. |
| Whether there was race/gender discrimination in promotion or scheduling | Promotion denial and scheduling were discriminatory or retaliatory. | Promoted similarly situated black female; no pretext shown; scheduling explanations reasonable. | Discrimination claim fails. |
| Whether there was retaliation after EEOC involvement | Termination and discipline were retaliation for EEOC activity. | No evidence of retaliatory causation or protected activity linked to adverse action. | Retaliation claim fails. |
| Whether the FMLA claim was properly raised and proven | FMLA leave cited due to daughter's knee surgery; denial unspecified. | Claim not properly framed or supported by law; no denial shown. | FMLA claim not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Baptist Mem'l Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2012) (extrinsic inconsistency requires explanation for contradictory affidavits)
- O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (inconsistencies within deposition may bar affidavit use)
- Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, L.L.C., 448 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for striking affidavits)
- Entm't Prods., Inc. v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn., 721 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Warf v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 713 F.3d 874 (6th Cir. 2013) (harassment standard for coworker conduct requires employer knowledge)
- Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2005) (employer liability for coworker harassment requires notice/knowledge)
- Ladd v. Grand Trunk W.R.R., Inc., 552 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2009) (affidavits in summary judgment must provide probative support)
- Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (promotion decisions not shown to be pretextual)
- Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 496 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007) (evidence of pretext and causation in discrimination claims)
- Russell v. Univ. of Toledo, 537 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008) (pretext analysis in retaliation/exit timing of employment actions)