## Facts

- Cynthia Heinsohn worked for Carabin & Shaw, P.C. as a legal assistant handling Social Security Administration matters.
- After initially resigning for higher pay elsewhere, she stayed when the firm increased her wages; her pay later rose again.
- Heinsohn became pregnant and took maternity leave in late 2012; before leave, her supervising attorney reassigned her cases to another assistant.
- Shortly after Heinsohn’s leave began, the replacement assistant reported that case-management notes suggested missed deadlines and related “good-cause” letters.
- The firm did not seek Heinsohn’s explanation; management decided to terminate her about two weeks into her maternity leave.
- Heinsohn alleged that, while she was on leave, the firm requested a “guaranteed return date,” which she contended supported interference and retaliatory/discriminatory motive.
- Emails between Heinsohn and human resources appeared to conflict with her deposition account about any demand for a guaranteed return date.
- Heinsohn filed an EEOC charge and then sued alleging violations of the FMLA and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA); the employer removed the case to federal court.
- The district court struck portions of Heinsohn’s deposition testimony as contradicted by emails, then granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred at summary judgment by striking deposition testimony as “sham” because it conflicted with contemporaneous emails.
2. Whether, considering the record in the nonmovant’s favor (including the disputed testimony), genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on FMLA interference and retaliation.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on TCHRA sex-discrimination and retaliation.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the district court improperly struck Heinsohn’s deposition testimony based on an asserted conflict with emails.
- Treating the testimony as competent summary-judgment evidence, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find for Heinsohn on her FMLA and TCHRA theories, given the timing and other circumstantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh conflicting evidence.
- The “sham affidavit” doctrine is applied narrowly; inconsistencies between sworn testimony and documents generally go to weight and credibility for the jury, not admissibility at Rule 56.
- Close temporal proximity between protected leave/pregnancy and termination, combined with evidence such as abrupt adverse action, lack of investigation, and disputed leave-related communications, can support a triable inference of retaliatory or discriminatory motive and pretext under burden-shifting analysis.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court improperly excluded key deposition testimony and, with that evidence considered, material fact disputes remained regarding whether the employer interfered with protected leave or retaliated/discriminated based on pregnancy and leave, requiring trial rather than summary judgment.


Heinsohn v. Carabin & Shaw, P.C., 832 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2016)