because there were no other vacant positions for which she was qualified and for which there were no other bidders. Since that time, plaintiff has been able to bid out of the entry level position. Defendant gives three additional examples of situations in which its policy against working for the same supervisor was implemented. They include:
a) Melinda and George Barnes, married April 4, 1980, were both working in Stores Department and reporting to same supervisor. They were advised of company policy and George, who had the least seniority, bid to another position;
b) Antoinette and Raymond Manns, married September 18, 1982, were both working for the same supervisor in the Treasury Department. Antoinette, who had the least seniority, was placed in a vacant position in another section of the Treasury Department.
c) Catherine and Robert Reiter, married on February 12, 1982, were both reporting to the same supervisor in the Accounting Department. They were advised of company policy and Robert, who had the least seniority, bid to Auto Dispatcher job in the Substations and Shops Department.
Plaintiff's response concedes that, if defendant in fact maintained an anti-nepotism policy prohibiting married employees from working under the same supervisor in excess of 30 days following the marriage, and if such policy were facially neutral and evenly applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, defendant would be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of sex discrimination because of marital status. Plaintiff however claims that a factual dispute exists as to the existence of such a policy. To support this claim, plaintiff points to defendant's admissions that
1) There is no written policy regarding married co-workers working for the same supervisor;
2) There is no written policy applying only to certain employees because they are married to other employees;
3) Defendant's practice with regard to employees who must be removed from a position is not governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Plaintiff concludes that defendant does not provide any evidence of a company practice. We do not reach the same conclusion. Defendant's affidavits provide four instances in which its unwritten policy or practice was maintained. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence which contradicts these instances, nor does plaintiff provide even one instance in which the policy was not applied to a married couple who worked for the same supervisor. Plaintiff does allege that the Reiter couple were permitted to work for the same supervisor in excess of 30 days. (Defendant indicates that they worked for 50 days after their marriage for the same supervisor, but that Mr. Reiter had successfully bid to another position within 30 days.) We do not believe that this refutes the existence of such a company policy. Rather plaintiff establishes that there may have been some flexibility in how the policy was applied, which we find reasonable under the circumstances.
Plaintiff further claims that the affidavits of M. L. Green, Jr. which established the instance in which the company practice was applied should be stricken as hearsay violative of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Mr. Green has been employed by defendant in the Human Resources Unit as the Supervisor Affirmative Action with access to the company's personnel records since May 3, 1983. As such, we find that Mr. Green may appropriately identify business documents, that he has knowledge of the information contained therein, and that he must use the personnel records in the performance of his duties. There is therefore sufficient indicia of reliability to make his testimony admissible at trial. Fed.R.Evid. 803(24).
Since we do not believe that plaintiff has established any genuine issue of material fact, and since the type of policy held by this company does not constitute sex discrimination, George v. Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 715 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1983), defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.