that she quit Luria’s because of the English-only policy and Mr. Merrill’s comment regarding people with heavy accents answering the phones, expressly stating that there was no other reason for quitting. In the later affidavit opposing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, she stated that she was subjected to daily derogatory remarks and hostile jokes about her Spanish accent by Mr. Bombara, was warned on a daily basis to speak English only, and that Mr. Merrill walked through the store each day snapping his fingers stating "no Spanish, no Spanish.” To the extent that these new allegations vary from the sworn testimony for the purpose of creating a material issue of fact or law, they are rejected. Unterreiner v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 8 F.3d 1206, 1210 (7th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). Other assertions of facts regarding the
holding that the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory of the statements contained in plaintiffs affidavit as to foreclose the affidavits use for summary judgment purposes holding that interested partys affidavit opposed to motion for summary judgment and governments deposition to explore facts asserted in affidavit do not constitute distinct proceedings holding that it is well settled that a plaintiff may not create a factual issue for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting a statement the plaintiff made in a prior deposition holding that facts alleged in an employees affidavit were insufficient to raise an issue of fact for the purposes of defeating a summary judgment where the affidavit contradicted the employees earlier deposition statements holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies