Opinion ID: 184247
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Steward’s Deposition Testimony

Text: From 1998 onward, Steward worked under the direct supervision of John McKerley, a white male. Since she had the “highest seniority on the line,” Steward enjoyed “[her] choice of jobs.” ROA at 122, 366. She further disavowed any knowledge of how other employees were assigned to their stations. ROA at 124. Nevertheless, Steward stated in her deposition that McKerley kept the approximately five to ten African-American employees (out of 20–40 whom he oversaw) “segregated” at opposite ends of the assembly line; Steward and some of her co-workers referred to her end of the line as “the undesirables,” and to the other end as “the good old boys.” ROA at 139. Steward also stated that McKerley assigned additional and more difficult work to her portion of the line, and sometimes had “the undesirables” do extra work while “the good old boys” took breaks. ROA at 358, 361. Furthermore, Steward complained that McKerley would sometimes cause the -2- No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler assembly line to move forward before Steward was finished with a job, thereby endangering her safety. ROA at 367. At the same time, however, Steward admitted that at least one white employee worked in what she called the “black part of the line,” ROA at 270, 358; that she was, at least at one point, teamed at her station with a white employee, ROA at 123; and that white employees replaced her at her position on the line when she was absent, ROA at 125. Further, she does not claim that she was denied any particular job on the assembly line on account of her race.3 ROA at 122–124, 366. According to Steward, McKerley “tr[ied] to keep it a secret” if there was overtime work available so that he could offer it to “his friends first, his golf buddies first” – i.e., to the “good old boys.” ROA at 361. McKerley also “let[] his golf buddies or his friends . . . take [personal] days” more freely than he let Steward take them. ROA at 361. Steward claimed that McKerley gave her disciplinary write-ups for petty infractions for which other employees were not disciplined, such as using the bathroom. ROA at 119, 361. However, Steward admitted that she was not suspended or docked any pay as a result of any such write-ups. ROA at 143, 364. Further, Steward did not claim that McKerley singled her out for discipline on account of her race, as opposed to some other reason. See ROA at 145 (“[I believe] that’s some kind of discrimination for whether I’m black, whether I’m 3 The statements from Steward’s deposition mentioned at page 5 of the dissent are clearly not time-identified to the relevant time frame, and thus cannot be considered, even if they could constitute evidence of adverse action. Steward’s clear statements as to picking her own job during the relevant time period are not undermined by the vague complaints referenced in pages 2–4 of the dissent, also not identified to the relevant time period. -3- No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler a woman, or for whatever reason, whether I filed charges, whether I’m voiceful, whether I practice my rights . . . through the National Labor Board.”). Steward stated that McKerley occasionally made “little racial jokes” to his friends, but “[n]ot to [her] directly”; she “didn’t really pay too much attention” to these jokes, and she could not describe them further. ROA at 146. Steward noted that a black employee once teased McKerley about “want[ing] some of [Steward’s] behind” and “lik[ing] black girls’ behinds.” ROA at 146. She did not complain about any of these comments to plant management.