Nonmovant’s Sworn Statements Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment: Knox v. CRC Management Co.

Introduction

Knox v. CRC Management Co., decided April 9, 2025 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arose from Natasha Knox’s suit against her former employer Clean Rite Centers and two supervisors, Cecilia Ashmeade and Ken Ferris. Knox, a Black woman of Jamaican descent, asserted that she was subjected to racial and national-origin harassment, retaliated against when she complained, denied reasonable accommodation for a thumb injury, and underpaid for extra shifts. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding her evidence insufficient. On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the record de novo and held that genuine disputes of material fact exist on every claim and that Knox’s sworn testimony and affidavit—despite being “self-serving”—could not be discounted at the summary‐judgment stage. The court vacated and remanded for trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in full. Key holdings:

Racial and national-origin discrimination: Knox presented evidence of daily derogatory remarks by supervisors (“Aunt Jemima,” “too hood/ghetto,” “Yankee in you”) plus evidence that the stated reason for her termination (taking $15 for taxi fare) was pretextual.
Retaliation: Knox complained about harassment and accommodation refusals, and was fired roughly one month later. Temporal proximity plus pretext evidence supports a jury claim.
Hostile work environment: A continuous “stream” of racially offensive comments over two months suffices to defeat summary judgment.
Disability accommodation: A factual dispute exists over whether requiring Knox to lift over 25 pounds violated state and city disability‐accommodation laws.
Wage claims: Knox’s unrebutted testimony that her own time sheets were altered and that she was never paid for extra shifts was enough to create a question for the jury.
Sworn affidavits: The court emphatically rejected the notion that “self-serving” affidavits alone cannot defeat summary judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986): Established that summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Articulated the burden‐shifting framework for discrimination and retaliation claims.
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013): Defined the “but-for” causation standard in retaliation cases.
Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000): Held that a “stream” of racially offensive remarks can create a hostile work environment.
Danzer v. Norden Sys., Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998): Confirmed that non-movant’s affidavits, even if “self-serving,” are admissible to oppose summary judgment.

Legal Reasoning

Applying de novo review, the court first re‐stated that summary judgment is only proper if no genuine dispute of material fact exists. It then analyzed each claim under the appropriate standard:

Discrimination/Retaliation: Under McDonnell Douglas, Knox made out prima facie cases by showing membership in protected classes, adverse actions (termination), and inferences of bias (harassing remarks close in time). Clean Rite’s proffered reason (cash removal) was undermined by Knox’s uncontradicted affidavit that taking taxi‐fare money with a receipt was company practice—thus raising a triable issue of pretext.
Hostile Work Environment: The court reiterated that “more than a few isolated incidents” are needed, but a “steady barrage” over two months suffices. Daily comments about Knox’s race and national origin, delivered by her supervisors, met this test.
Disability Accommodation: Under New York law, Knox had to show she was disabled (a broken thumb), the employer knew of it, she could perform her duties with a 25-pound-lifting limitation, and the employer refused. Her sworn statements on each point created a dispute.
Wage Claims: For FLSA and state‐law overtime/minimum‐wage claims, inaccurate records shift the burden to the employer. Knox’s reasonable estimates from memory and affidavit were sufficient to warrant trial.
Sworn Testimony: The court rejected the district court’s characterization of Knox’s affidavit as “self-serving” and thus insufficient. Citing Danzer and Rentas, it held that Rule 56(c) permits a party’s own deposition or sworn affidavit to create a factual dispute.

Impact

Knox v. CRC Management Co. clarifies and strengthens the non-movant’s position at summary judgment in employment cases:

Affirms that a plaintiff’s own sworn testimony, even if “self-serving,” may alone defeat summary judgment.
Reinforces that temporal proximity plus any evidence of pretext supports retaliation claims at the pleading stage.
Reiterates that repeated discriminatory remarks over a short span can create a hostile work environment.
Signals to employers that summary judgment motions must be supported by clear documentary evidence, not just invocation of policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A judge’s decision before trial when there is “no genuine dispute” of important facts. Knox shows that her disputes are genuine.
McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: Plaintiff first shows discrimination prima facie; employer gives a legitimate reason; plaintiff then shows that reason is likely false (pretext).
“Self-Serving” Affidavit: A sworn statement by a party. Courts sometimes mistrust them, but this case confirms they are valid to raise factual disputes.
Hostile Work Environment: Harassing conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to make the workplace abusive. It is judged by frequency, severity, and effect on work conditions.
Prima Facie Case: The minimal facts a plaintiff must produce to shift the burden to the defendant.
Pretext: An employer’s stated reason for an adverse action that is false or inconsistent, suggesting discrimination or retaliation.

Conclusion

Knox v. CRC Management Co. is a leading Second Circuit decision reinforcing employees’ rights to keep employment discrimination and retaliation claims alive through summary judgment. It underscores that a non-movant’s sworn affidavit cannot be disregarded as “self-serving,” clarifies standards for hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and emphasizes the court’s role in viewing all evidence—and drawing all reasonable inferences—in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. This decision is poised to influence future summary‐judgment litigation by raising the evidentiary threshold employers must meet to dispose of discrimination cases before trial.