with — indeed, contrary to — her prior deposition testimony that she could not perform the “picker” job, either with or without reasonable accommodation. As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained,' It is well-settled that “[pjarties to a motion for summary judgment cannot create sham issues of fact in an effort to defeat summary judgment.” American Airlines, Inc. v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc., 114 F.3d 108, 111 (8th Cir.1997). Consequently, a party should not be allowed to create issues of credibility by contradicting his own earlier testimony. Ambiguities and even conflicts in a deponent’s testimony are generally matters for the jury to sort out, but a district court may grant summary judgment where a party’s sudden and unexpla 18-22 (N.D.Iowa May 6, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Waitek v. Daikon Shield Claimants Trust, 908
holding that an affidavit and deposition testimony are not blatantly contradictory where the two statements can possibly be consistent with one another holding that plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered 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 plaintiffs affidavit failed to fall within the exception stated in camfield tires inc v michelin tire corp 719 f2d 1361 8th cir1983 that an affidavit contradicting the prior deposition testimony of the affiant but containing an adequate explanation for the disparity may create a genuine issue of fact because plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory from the statements contained in her affidavit 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