Norman Jackson v. Consolidation Coal Company, McElroy Mine District 6, United Mine Workers of America Local Union 1638, United Mine Workers of America
Docket: 93-1742
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 21, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Consolidation Coal Company and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) regarding Norman Jackson's appeal. Jackson, employed as a pipeman at the McElroy Mine from September 1972 until his termination in May 1991, claimed his discharge was retaliatory for receiving workers' compensation benefits after suffering multiple injuries. On May 26, 1991, he left work early without permission and was later found in possession of mine tools during a traffic stop, leading to a notice of suspension and intent to discharge from Consol. Jackson contested the discharge, alleging it violated West Virginia law against discrimination for receiving workers' compensation, but his attempts were unsuccessful.
In September 1991, Jackson filed a federal complaint against Consol and UMWA, asserting multiple claims, including a violation of W. Va. Code Sec. 23-5A-1. In March 1993, both defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, dismissing the case. Jackson's appeal focused on the court's decision to disregard parts of his affidavit that alleged threats from a Consol foreman, which the court deemed inconsistent with his earlier deposition testimony, thus failing to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Jackson contends that the district court wrongly dismissed threats mentioned in his affidavit, arguing that his prior deposition did not address these threats as he was not specifically asked about them. The court found this argument unpersuasive. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a party may oppose a summary judgment motion with affidavits, but such affidavits can be disregarded if deemed a sham due to contradictions with prior testimony. The district court determined that Jackson's affidavit statements about threats from foreman Wetzel contradicted his deposition, where he was asked multiple times to provide the factual basis for his discriminatory discharge claim but did not mention any threats. Consequently, the court appropriately classified these statements as a sham and did not consider them as creating a genuine issue of material fact.
Jackson's assertion that the court should not have dismissed his affidavit since he was not expressly asked about threats was rejected, citing a similar case where a plaintiff's failure to mention previously alleged fraud during extensive depositions led to the dismissal of a later affidavit as a sham. The court noted that Jackson had been repeatedly asked for facts but only provided certain details unrelated to the alleged threats. Additionally, Jackson's explanation that he simply recalled the threats after his deposition lacked supporting evidence. Overall, the district court's decision to disregard Jackson's affidavit was upheld, as it was inconsistent with his previous testimony and lacked credible justification for the discrepancies.
Jackson did not mention alleged threats during his deposition, despite previously requesting that his UMWA representatives address the discriminatory discharge at arbitration. The court found it implausible that a plaintiff asserting discriminatory discharge would forget such threats, particularly since they represented his strongest evidence for a retaliatory motive behind his discharge related to workers' compensation claims. Consequently, the district court deemed Jackson's affidavit a sham.
The sole issue for the district court regarding Consol's motion for summary judgment on count three was whether Jackson had shown a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation under W. Va. Code Sec. 23-5A-1. The court meticulously evaluated each piece of evidence submitted by Jackson, which he later contended should have been considered collectively. However, the appellate court found this argument meritless, affirming that there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting Jackson's claim that his pursuit of workers' compensation benefits significantly influenced his discharge decision. Thus, even a collective review of the evidence would not alter the outcome in favor of Jackson.
The district court's granting of summary judgment to Consol on count three was upheld, affirming its judgment. Additionally, while Jackson claimed that a co-worker's affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation, the court determined that the vague assertions in the affidavit did not sufficiently connect to the retaliatory discharge claim related to workers' compensation benefits, and thus did not necessitate further consideration.
