Court Opinion

ID: 9490946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:59:34.317199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:25.167883
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The district court correctly concluded that Mr. Canada’s deposition testimony consisted of general statements that established nothing more than plaintiffs “subjective sense that he answered questions correctly but did not receive credit for them.” Canada v. Union Elec. Co., No. 4:95CV2066, Mem. and Order at 12 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31,1997). This was not enough to avoid summary judgment for the defendant. The court points to ambiguous language in Mr. Canada’s deposition for the proposition that Mr. Canada had access to the “company’s version of the model answers” allowing him to know that his answers were correct. Ante at 1215. One cannot reasonably extract such a state of affairs from the quoted litany. Indeed, when directly asked:
Q. Okay. So you saw the questions and you saw the answers from the company, right?
A. No, the answers that — the notations that he had made saying that I had not answered that question.
Nothing else in the record indicates that he ever saw the correct answers, only that he had studied for the test and that he, subjectively, felt that his answers were correct.
Accordingly, I dissent.