Opinion ID: 2982146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Because I was a replacement worker.

Text: .... Q. Any other reason why you think he discriminated against you besides you were a replacement worker? -5- No. 12-4424 Powell-Pickett v. AK Steel A. I don’t recall at this time. Q. Okay. Any other reasons why you think that Bill Belding discriminated against you? A. Don’t recall at this time. Q. Okay. Any other reasons why you think that Bill Belding harassed you because of your race? A. Retaliation. .... Q. All right. Well, . . . tell me how he harassed you because of your race. A. I don’t recall at this time. Q. Okay. Tell me how he retaliated against you because of your race. A. I don’t recall at this time. Q. Okay. Tell me why you think anybody in supervision at AK Steel discriminated against you because of your race. A. I don’t recall at this time. Q. Tell me why you think anybody in management at AK Steel discriminated against you because of your gender. A. I don’t recall. Q. Okay. Tell me why you think anybody in AK Steel management retaliated against you because of any protected activity you engaged in. A. Don’t recall. .... Q. What proof do you have . . . that the company fired you because of your filings with the EEOC? A. That’s just what I feel. Q. Do you have any other reason why you feel that way? -6- No. 12-4424 Powell-Pickett v. AK Steel A. I have plenty of reasons. Q. Well, now is the time to tell them. A. Don’t recall them at this time. R. 35 at Dep. 82-85. Powell-Pickett’s present attorney entered the case, and AK Steel moved for summary judgment. Powell-Pickett supported her response in opposition with affidavits from herself, two co-workers, and a supervisor, the one whose June 2008 email on her behalf raised only scheduling issues. These affidavits affirmed the complaint’s main allegations of mistreatment, and they added that a co-worker had touched Powell-Pickett’s hair, that a manager had called her “Buckwheat,” and that a couple managers had spread rumors that she was once a “hooker in Alaska.” AK Steel moved to strike Powell-Pickett’s affidavit and hold her to her testimony under oath. Observing simple facts—that Powell-Pickett lost a promotion to a fellow former replacement worker who was both female and black; that no record evidence showed management discovering the worst alleged wrongs (the noose, the urine); and that Powell-Pickett’s deposition and subsequent affidavit were irredeemably inconsistent—the district court granted the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment.