Kishia Bright v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc.
639 F. App'x 6
2d Cir.2015Background
- Ten named plaintiffs (current/former CCR employees at Elmsford and Maspeth) sued CCR alleging racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under New York State and City human rights laws.
- Claims included disparate job assignments, training, promotions, evaluations/discipline, and a 2011 handwritten racial slur incident in a men’s bathroom investigated by CCR but with no culprit identified.
- Most plaintiffs were union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement; five other plaintiffs previously dismissed or settled and did not pursue the appeal.
- Plaintiffs submitted new affidavits during summary judgment briefing adding numerous additional incidents the plaintiffs had not mentioned in their depositions.
- The district court excluded affidavit allegations that contradicted prior sworn deposition testimony and granted summary judgment for CCR; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on discrimination/hostile work environment claims | Plaintiffs argue their evidence (including new affidavits) shows discriminatory treatment and a racially hostile culture | CCR argues plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues of material fact and many allegations are hearsay or newly fabricated | Court affirmed summary judgment for CCR — plaintiffs failed to show triable issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether district court properly excluded later affidavits that contradicted depositions | Plaintiffs contend affidavits supplement poor recollection and should be considered | CCR contends affidavits improperly contradict prior sworn deposition testimony to create issues of fact | Court held exclusion proper under Second Circuit precedent: affidavits that contradict prior sworn testimony cannot be used to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether cumulative incidents (including bathroom slur) created a triable hostile work environment | Plaintiffs rely on multiple incidents and the 2011 slur to show a hostile environment | CCR notes remedial actions taken and lack of identified perpetrator; disputes sufficiency and timeliness of many incidents | Court held incidents insufficient, especially given evidentiary problems and post-discovery additions; no triable hostile-environment claim established |
| Whether retaliation claims had factual support to survive summary judgment | Plaintiffs allege adverse acts following protected complaints and litigation leadership | CCR disputes causal link and material adverse actions, and challenges credibility of allegations | Court affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims for lack of disputed material facts supporting retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Trans-Orient Marine Corp. v. Star Trading & Marine, Inc., 925 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1991) (party may not create issue of fact by submitting affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony)
- Rule v. Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1002 (2d Cir. 1996) (subsequent affidavit may be considered if it amplifies or explains, not contradicts, prior testimony)
- Perma Research & Dev. Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1969) (adding new allegations after close of discovery undermines summary judgment utility)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2008) (definition of genuine issue and summary judgment review)
- Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005) (de novo review of district court summary judgment ruling)