Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03349/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03349-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DUNCAN STUART, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

J N 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3349 

(D.C. No. 88-1388-T) 

(D. Kan.) 

BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; and 

RAYTHEON CORPORATION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Duncan Stuart appeals the district court's grant of 

summary judgment in favor of appellees Beech Aircraft Corporation 

("Beech") and Raytheon Corporation on his claim for wrongful 

discharge. We affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3349 Document: 010110119388 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 1 
. ' ~ 

Mr. Stuart argues that the district court failed to consider 

in its determination certain statements made by Beech employees 

regarding his termination. Beech counters that the statements are 

inadmissible hearsay and thus improper for consideration. A 

statement is not hearsay if it was made by a party's employee 

during the employment relationship concerning a matter within the 

the scope of the employment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 801(2)(0); Boren v. 

Sable, 887 F.2d 1032, 1037-38 (10th Cir. 1989). Thus, the 

statement by Ed Hooper, Mr. Stuart's supervisor, concerning Mr. 

Stuart's discharge, is not hearsay, but an admission. The 

statement by Mr. Hooper's personal secretary, however, is hearsay 

because it does not concern a matter within the scope of her 

employment. Even if the district court failed to consider Mr. 

Hooper's statement in its decision, however, we have reviewed the 

record and we conclude Mr. Stuart still falls short of 

establishing his claim of wrongful discharge under Palmer v. 

Brown, 242 Kan. 893, 752 P.2d 685 (1988), for substantially the 

reasons set out by the district court in its Memorandum and Order 

at 16-19. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3349 Document: 010110119388 Date Filed: 06/12/1991 Page: 2