Opinion ID: 2633397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the district court err in striking Frazier's affidavit?

Text: The district court held that Frazier's affidavit conflicted with her prior deposition testimony, and, relying upon Burrell v. Star Nursery, Inc., 170 F.3d 951 (9th Cir.1999), and Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.1991), it refused to consider the affidavit. The Kennedy case, upon which the district court relied was cited by this Court in Tolmie Farms, Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Company, Inc., 124 Idaho 607, 610, 862 P.2d 299, 302 (1993), wherein this Court stated: Simplot argues that the Tolmies are trying to prevent an adverse summary judgment by creating factual issues in the affidavit which contradict their prior sworn deposition testimony. However, it appears that Simplot failed to review the corrected deposition testimony prior to Tolmie's signature on December 28, 1989, which does not conflict with his affidavit. While we may agree that the purpose of summary judgment is served by a rule that prevents a party from creating sham issues by offering contradictory testimony, we perceive no contradiction where the witness asserts in his affidavit facts which, at the time of his earlier deposition, he specifically had asserted he could not recall. Kennedy v. Allied Mut., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67 (9th Cir.1991) (district court must determine that affidavit contradicting prior testimony is a sham before it determines that affidavit cannot be used to create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment). In the Tolmie Farms case, we did not adopt the reasoning of the Kennedy case. We held that in that case there was no contradiction between the affidavit and the corrected deposition testimony. In this case, we likewise need not decide whether to adopt the reasoning of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because there was not a sufficient conflict between Frazier's deposition testimony and her statements in her affidavit. In her affidavit, Frazier made the following statements: 2. Since I began working in the parts room at Simplot, male members of the maintenance crew and other sections at Simplot have come to the parts window to tell jokes concerning female body parts. This conduct continued until Simplot sold the parts room to ISA in 1996. Although such conduct still happens occasionally, it has never risen to the level of almost daily occurrence as when Simplot still owned the parts room. 3. While Simplot owned the parts room, male employees would routinely demand access to the parts room although access is limited to authorized personnel. They would ridicule me and tell me that I was too stupid to know what part they needed or that I wouldn't understand because I was a woman. 4. From 1989 until Simplot sold the parts room George Argenbright and many other male employees would refer to me as broad or chickie. ... 7. After I left the carton line in 1988, I still had to deal with Les Pearson on an almost daily basis until he left Simplot. During this time he continued to yell at me, especially if a part was not available and he would blame me personally. He would yell and point his finger at me and tell me that it was my fault that he was no longer on the carton line because I complained about the physical beatings. He routinely referred to me as a stupid broad and told me on many occasions why don't you just go home and scrub floors?. The district court held that Frazier's affidavit conflicted with the following portion of her deposition testimony. Q. And were you subject to physical and verbal abuse when you were in the parts room? A. No. Actually not. Q. That would have been after 1989 then; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So any of the physical and verbal abuse you allege in your complaint was before 1989? A. Yes. In the carton line. Yes. Construing the facts liberally in favor of Frazier, as we must on a motion for summary judgment, we hold that there was not a conflict between her above-quoted deposition testimony and her affidavit. Prior to the above-quoted deposition testimony, Frazier was asked to give every detail upon which she based her claim that she was subject to physical and verbal abuse because she was a female. Frazier responded, Well, there is so many of them. After a short discussion with her counsel, she stated, I will try to remember. Physicalthe question was on abuse? She then recounted physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Les Pearson, her chief antagonist. She testified that when she obtained a job as a forklift driver in 1979, she was the only female forklift driver. Mr. Pearson approached her and told her he would run her out and that she should be home sweeping floors. As she continued her testimony, she stated, I got to pick out the things that was physical abuse. It just got increasingly more confrontational until '82. In '82 it really culminated in battery where he would just come up and knock you down or shove you around or. She then testified about her complaint to management in 1982 due to Pearson's conduct, that nothing came of the complaint, and that around the same time Pearson knocked Frazier down and battered three other women who were working in the same area. She was then asked, And were you subject to physical and verbal abuse when you were in the parts room? The question asked whether she was subject to physical and verbal abuse while she was in the parts room. Considering her prior testimony where she was focusing upon physical abuse and her later testimony that when she was in the parts room, Mr. Pearson was not able to directly do anything to me, because there were bars in between us, Frazier may have interpreted the question as requiring both physical abuse and verbal abuse. Because she did not suffer physical abuse after she began working in the parts room, she would have answered the question no, even though she asserts she suffered some verbal abuse while working in the parts room. Under these circumstances, we hold that the district court erred in disregarding Frazier's affidavit.