Court Opinion

ID: 9514220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:45:47.089778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:14.041460
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 50] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 51] Hysjulien’s later affidavit appears to be the classic sham affidavit.
[¶ 52] Hysjulien unequivocally told the North Dakota Department of Labor that *551she had been terminated on September 2, 2008.
[¶ 53] Hysjulien later filed an affidavit contradicting her earlier statement, saying she did not understand the legal significance of her previous statement in that it terminated her right to pursue her claim, and so she was providing a new version of what had happened. This appears to be the essence of a sham affidavit.
[¶ 54] It is important to note, it was not only the date that was contradicted by her second affidavit. She stated in her first affidavit that she believed it would be easy to fill the vacant positions. In her subsequent affidavit she said it was only after the positions were not able to be filled that she was given unequivocal notice of termination.
[¶ 55] She said in her Department of Labor filing that she was told on September 2 she was being terminated and that there “were other options beyond simply terminating my position, but none were offered.” But in her later affidavit she said the alternative to termination offered was that the vacant occupational therapist position would be filled by the application deadline.
[¶ 56] In her Department of Labor filing she said:
On September 2, 2008, Mr. Armitage informed me that my position was to be terminated effective September 80, 2008. He claimed the occupational therapy department was no longer profitable, which I do not believe to be true in light of the documentation he provided me showing that the program was indeed profitable. He also claimed that he did not believe the two positions we had open in the department would be able to be filled. As I had taken three phone calls that day regarding the open positions, I do not believe there would have been any difficulty in filling the positions. He went on to say that with only one therapist, we would not be able to fulfill our. contract with Sakakawea Medical Center as such he would terminate that contract. There were other options beyond simply terminating my position, but none were offered.
(Emphasis added.) In her affidavit in opposition to summary judgment she said:
On September 2, 2008 I had a conversation with Greg Armitage who advised me that the Board of Directors of Hill Top Home of Comfort had decided to close the occupational therapy/physieal therapy department because the department was short staffed and no longer profitable. I advised Mr. Armitage that I was still fielding telephone inquiries about the full-time occupational therapist position advertised for and reminded him that the deadline for applying for this position was the end of the week, September 5th and that I had taken three calls that very day inquiring as to the advertised position. Although I do not remember the conversation exactly, I was left with the clear understanding that if an occupational therapist could be identified to fill the advertised for position by the end of the week that the department would not have to be closed and I would not be terminated. Following this conversation I took at least two more telephone calls in the next few days from individuals interested in the occupational therapist position but did not receive any applications by the Friday September 5, 2008 advertising deadline. The following Monday, September 8th, I visited with Mr. Armitage and advised him that I had received no applications for the occupational therapist position. Mr. Armitage responded that he would have no choice then other than to close the department and terminate my position with Hill Top Home of Com*552fort. Following that discussion, I emailed Mr. Armitage, “Greg, could you give me a written notice dated last Tuesday giving my notice with the effective dates and reason my position is being terminated? You can just put it in my box in an envelope. Lindsey.” (See, Exhibit 2, Email to Greg Armitage from myself dated 9/08/08, attached).
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 57] The majority, at ¶ 23, notes a district court must use caution in disregarding an affidavit:
[W]hen the affiant states in his affidavit that he was confused in his deposition or where the affiant needs to explain portions of his deposition testimony that were unclear, the district court should not strike the affidavit from the record. In addition, when the affiant’s affidavit does not actually contradict his earlier testimony, the district court should not strike the affidavit from the record.
City of St. Joseph v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 489 F.3d 468, 476 (8th Cir.2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). But Hysjulien’s later affidavit triggers none of those listed exceptions. Her later statement, justified only by her “not understanding at the time the significance of the date,” is not to explain portions of testimony that were unclear or to acknowledge her confusion at her deposition, and it is very much contradictory to her earlier testimony. Hysjulien’s later affidavit creates a sham issue of fact.
[¶ 58] Finally, nothing in our rules requires formal striking of sham affidavits before deciding there is no genuine issue as to a material fact. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 56.
[¶ 59] I would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.