## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 3914
M ICHAEL G ERMANO, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I NTERNATI ONA L P ROFI T A S S OC I A T I ON, I NC ., I NT EG RAT ED B USINE SS A NA LYSIS, I NC ., an d I NTERNATI ONA L T AX A D V ISORS, I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C5638

— George W. Lindberg, Judg e.
A RG UE D J UNE 4, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 12, 2008

Befo re B AUER, W OO D , an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ir cu it Judge. M i chaelGerm ano i s a m an with a s eve re hear i ng i m pai rm ent who a p p li ed f ora tax ad vis or p os itio n w ith D efe n d an t In te rn at ion al T ax A d visor s, Inc. ( “I TA ”)

. Bel i eving tha t I TA r ej ecte d him f or the pos i ti on be c au se ofhi s di sabi l i ty, he fi l ed sui t a gainst IT A in d ist ric t c ou rtu n d er th e A m er ica n s w ith D isa b ili ti es A ct ( “A DA ”) , 42 U

. S. C. §§ 1211 1- 17 ( 2000 )

. H e a l so2 N o. 07

- 3914

n am ed as d efe n d an ts oth er co rp or at e e n t i tie s in vo lve d in I TA ’ s r ecr uit i ng and hi ring pro cess ; we re fert o them coll ectively a s I T A

. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j u d gm en t in fav or of th e d efe n d a n ts , relyin g e x c lu siv ely on i ts concl usi on th at t he ke y e vi dence subm i tte d by Ge r man o i n o pp o s i t i o n t o s ummar y j ud g men twa s i na dm i ssibl e hear say . A s w e expla i n bel ow, thi s w as wrong. Once w e res tor e his ev i dence to the picture, Germ ano has r ai se d t r i ab l e i ss ue s o ff ac t wi thr es pect to eac h e l ement o fhi s di sc r i m i na ti o n c l ai m . W e th er efo r e r ev er se the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourtand re m and fo r further proce edi ngs.

I A s u su al, ind ec id in g w h et h er s u m m a ry j u d gm en t is appropri ate , we re vi ew the cour t’ s co ncl u sio n s o fl aw deno vo and acce pt the f acts i n the l i gh t m os t fa vor abl e t o th e n on m ov in g p ar ty , d ra w in g all re as on ab le in fer en c es in h is fa vo r. Lapk a v. C her toff , 517 F .3 d 9 7 4 , 980-81 (7th C ir. 2008 )

. T he ce ntra lquesti on her e i s whether the di str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve e xc l uded o n h ea r sa y g r o unds the evi dence thatGerm ano proffer ed; i fso , the j ud gm ent for I TA st ands, but i fnot, then sum m ar y j u d gm ent was i napp ro pri ate
. I n op p o sing th e d efend an ts’ m otion for su m m ary j ud g men t, Ge r man o r e l i e d in pa r to n st a t e men t s ma de b y R on Sa ge , an ag en t o f ITA , d u r in g a te lep h on e c all be twe enS ag e an d Ger m an o . The wri nk l e i s th i s: Ge r m an o i s deaf, and he thus m ust use a tel eco m m unic at i ons re l ay s e r v i c e ( “ T R S ” ) to c o mmu n i c a t e t o p e r s o n s w i th u n i m-N o. 07

- 3914 3 pai r ed he ar i ngo ve rthe pho ne. To pl ac e a ca l l, Ge r m an o u s e s a t e x t t e l e p h o n e t o s e n d t o th e T R S th e p h o n e n u mbero fthe party h e wis hes t o re ach. The TRS co nnects G er m an o t o th e firs t a va ilab le o p e r a to r, refe rre d to in th e i ndus try a s a co m m uni ca ti o ns a ss i st an t ( “CA”) , who di al s th e pa r ty ’ s numbero ve ra n o r di na r y t el eph o ne l i ne. W hen Germ ano w ants to saysom ethi ng to the perso n he c al l ed, he s en ds th e m es sa g e i n t ex t to the CA, who re a d s i t ve rb at im to th at p er so n ov er th e p h on e. (P eo p le w ith severe h earing im p airm en ts often al so ha ve d if

fi c ul t y s pe a k i nga l o ud i n a wa y tha ti s ful l y u nd e r s t a nd

ab le t o ot h er s. Se e, e . g., “ A Fi rs t Language : W hose Choi ce I s I t?” Gall audet U ni v. Laurent Cler c N ati onalDeafEdu c. C en ter, at ht tp : //clerccen ter.gal laud et.edu /pR O D U C T S/ Shar i ng- I deas/ afi rs t/ em phasi s. htm l( l astvi si ted A ug. 25 , 20 08 )

. Es pec i al l y g i ve n the di st o r ti ons o ft el eph o ne l i ne s, s ucha pe r so n mi g htpr efert o s en d h is o ut g o i ng m ess age s in text , a s wel las to r ecei ve hi s incom i ng m essag es i n text. ) W hen the pe rs on responds, the CA ty pes the r esponse ve rba ti m i n re alti m e a nd se nd s that t ext t o G er m an o. C om m u n ica ti o n p ro c ee d s b ac k a n d fort hin thi s way. The dis tr i ct c ourthel d that Ger m an o’ s deposi ti on tes ti m ony about the c onte nt o f t h e co nver sat i on that was c o nd uc t e d u s i ngthe T RSb e t we e n S a g e a nd h i mse l fwas i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay. I f S ag e and Germ ano had spoken to e ac h o th ero ve ra n o r d inary p hone l i ne a s two he ar i ng per so ns woul d ha ve do ne , Ger m an o c o ul d t es ti fy abo ut Sag e’s r em ar ks w i th no hear saypro bl em s be cause Sag e’ s s tat em ents w oul d consti tute adm i ssi ons of a par tyop ponent, w hich are non he arsay u nd er F ED . R. E V ID .4 N o. 07

- 3914 801(d )( 2)(D). Th e d istri ct cou rt de term ined , how ever, that the o nl y s tat em ents Germ ano perce i ved w ere those of the C A , and it f o u nd that the C A ’s statem en ts w ere i na dm i ss ibl e he ar sa y . W he th erthi s was c o r r ec t i s th e q u es tio n of law th at is atth e c en te r of th is a p p ea l.

II A IT A be gin s w ith a fam iliar p ro c ed u ra l arg u m en t: it as se r ts tha t Ger m an o f ai l ed to r ai se th is argum en t i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, a nd thus he c anno t as se r t i t he r e. W e co nc lu d e t h at G er m an o d id n otforfe it th e p oin t. F ED . R. E V ID . 10 3 spe ci fi es ho w o ne sh o ul d o bj ec t to an erron eo us r ul i nge i th era dm i tt i ngo re xc l udi nge vi den ce. If th e di st r i ctc o ur t admi ts the c o nt es te d e vi den ce , the o ppo ne nt m us t m ak e a ti m ely o bj ec ti o n o rmot i o n t o s tr i k e, “ st at i ng the s peci fi c g ro und of obj ecti on, i fthe speci fi c g ro und was no t appa r en t fr o m the c o nt ex t[

. ] ” Rul e 10 3( a) ( 1)

. I f, o n the oth er hand, the di st r i ctc o ur t ex cl ude s ev i den ce tha t th e partybel i eve s s houl d ha ve c om e in, then the o nl y r equi r e men t i s tha t “ the s ub s t a nc e o f the e v i de nc e was m ade kno w n to the cour t byo ffero r w as apparent fro m th e c on te x t w ith inw h ich qu es tio n s w er e a sk ed .” R u le 10 3( a) ( 2)

. In e i th ere ve nt, the c o ur t’ s ev i den ti ary r ul i ng cannot be dee m ed er ro neous u n les s i t a ffecte d the s ubstanti alr i ght o fthe obj ecting par ty

— a s i ts ur e l y di d f or Germ ano. W e ar e sat i sfi ed that Germ ano’ s offer of proo f, w h i ch h e i n c l u d e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o I T A’ s m o t i o n f o rs u m-N o. 07

- 3914 5

m ary j ud gm en t, w as en ou gh to com p ly w ith Ru le 103(a)( 2). I TA ar g ue d i n r eply t o Ge r m an o ’ s br i eftha t Germ an o’s te st im on y a b ou t t h e T R S c on ve rs at ion w as ina d m iss ible hear say . Germ ano had no further op p or tuni ty to l i ti gat e th e evid en tiary qu estion at th at p oint. H e d id, h o w ever, at te m p t t o p re se n t h is a rg u m en ts on ad m iss ib i l i t y in hi s m o ti o n fo rr ec o ns i der at i o n. In de ny i ngtha t m o ti o n, th e di st r i ctc o ur t co m m en te d that, bec au se Ge r m an o ma d e a mo t i o n t o s up pl e me n tth e r e c o r d w i th s o me si gnatur e page s a fter I TA fi l ed i ts re ply, he c oul d al so ha ve pe ti ti o ne d the c o ur t f o rpe r m i ss i o n to br i efthe he ar sa y i ss ue tha t I TA had r ai se d. Pe r ha ps so , b utthere i s no pr o vi si o n g i vinga ri g htt o thi s k i nd o fe xt r a br i efi ng in th e Fed eral Ru les ofCivil Proc ed ure or th e N orthe rn Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s’ s l oca lr ule s. The co urt’ s s ugges ti on w as al so i nconsi ste nt with the thrust of Rule 103( a) , wh i ch re l i e v e s a p a r t y fr o m t he n e e d t o r e i t e r a t e i t s o bj e c t i on oroffe r ofpro ofr epeate dly

. Germ ano w as enti tl ed to , a nd di d, r a i s e h i s a r g ume nti n the mo t i o n f o rr e c o ns i der at i o n. In o urv i ew, tha t was e no ug h. I n l i ght o fthe f act that w e a pp l y de n ovo r ev i ew t o the gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent a s well a s to the r eso l uti on o fth e l e g a li s s u e wh e th e ra p a r t i c u l a rs t a t e me n tc o nsti tutes hear say, ther e i s no i nsti tuti ona l reas on notto r ea chthe mer i ts o fGe r m an o ’ s appe al

. There is a l so no f ai rnes s probl em , bec ause I TA had the opportunity t o ad d ress th e issue before th e d istri ct cou rt

— i nd eed, i t was I TA thatwas the fi rs t t o ra i se i t, i n i ts re p ly b riefo n sum m ar y j ud gm ent.6 N o. 07

- 3914 B N o cour t o fappeal s has ye t a dd re sse d the adm i ssibi l i ty of a co m m u n ica tio n s ass ist an t’s tra n sm itt ed st at em en ts in a TRS c onver sat i on. W e fi nd , and the parti es appear t o ag r ee , th a tth e b e s tg u i d a n c e c o me s fr o m c a s e s d e a l i ng w i th f or ei gn l anguage i nter prete rs . A lmos t a ce ntur y a g o , i n Lee v. U nited Sta tes , 19 8 F

. 59 6, 601 (7th Cir. 1912), th is cou rt up he ld th e ad m issi on of M r. Poy’ s s tat em ents, as r epor ted bythe i m m i gr ati on inspector w ho inter vi ew ed hi m , despi te the f act that P oy was speaking thr ough a C hi nese i nter prete r and the inter prete r d i d n o tt e s t i fy ab o u tth e c o n t e n t s o fth e i n t e r v i e w. We note d that th e l aw i s wel ls et tl ed i n f av o rofadm i ss ibi l i tywi th o ut th e ne ce ss i tyo fe ve n c al l i ng the int er pr et er . W he n a convers atio n tak en pl ace between a perso n w hose dec l ar at i o n i s admi ss ibl e i n ev i den ce an d an o th er, a nd t h ey ca ll in or as se n t t o th e u se of an int er p re te r in or der t o enabl e th em to s peak with each othe r, ea ch one adopts a m od e ofi nter
- com m unica ti on in w hi ch they necess ar i l y a ssum e that the i nter prete r i s t rust
w or th y, an d w h ich m ak es h is lan gu ag e p re su m p tiv ely th ei ro wn. Id. at 601. A lthou gh th e i n t e rp reter, w ho d id n ot testify ab o utthe s ubs ta nc e o fthe s tat ement s, di d a ve rtha t he tr ansl ate d cor rectl y, thi s f act w as not centr alto the re aso ni ngi n Lee . T o the c ontr ar y, we expli ci tl y no ted that th er e i s no ne ed f o rthe i nt er p rete rt o t es ti fy a t al l

. To re in for c e th e po in t, w e ex c er p te d th e en tir e ( a d m i tt ed ly br i ef ) o pi ni o n in C o m m o nw eal th v. V o se, 32 N
. E. 355 ( M ass .N o. 07

- 3914 7 1892 ) , i n w hi ch the tr ansl ated st ate m ents w er e a dm i tte d aga i nst the defe nd ant in a c ri m i naltr i al, wh er e the Fr ench tr ansl ato r did notte sti fy a t a l land w as n ot a profess i onal i nter prete r. The Suprem e J ud i ci alCourto fM ass achusett s obs er ved that, i n a c onver sat i on wh er e par ti es m ust com m un icate th roug h an i nt erp reter, [e]a c h ac ts u p on th e t h eo ry th at th e in te rp re ta tio n is cor re ct. Each i m pli edl y a gr ees thathi s l anguage m ayb e r ec ei ve d thr o ug h the i nt er pr et er . I fno th i ng ap p ear s to s ho w tha t th ei rr es pec ti ve r el at i o ns t o the i nter prete r differ, theym ay be s ai d to co nsti tute hi m thei r j oi nt a ge n t to do forbo th thati n w hi ch they have a j oi nt i nt er est
. They wis h to co m m unica te w i th ea ch other, the y c hoos e a m ode o fco m m unica

ti on, theyente r i n to conve rs ati on, and the w or ds of the inter prete r, wh i ch ar e thei r necess ar y m ed iu m o f c om m u ni cati on, ar e a dopted by bo th, and m ade a p ar t o ft h e ir co n ve rs at ion as m u c h as th os e w h ich fall fr o m the i ro wn l i ps. The y c anno t co m pl ain ifthe l anguage o fthe i nter prete r i s t ake n as th eir o w n by an y one w ho is i nt erested i n th e con versat ion. I nt erpreta ti on under s uch ci rcum sta nces i s prim a faci e to be dee m ed c or re ct.
. . . The f act that a co nver sat i on was had thr o ug h an i nt er pr et eraffec ts the wei g ht, b ut not the c om petency, o fthe evi dence. Id. at35 5. The onl y qual i fi cati on that V o ses ug g es te d was tha t th e presum pti on o fco rr ectn es s ofthe tr ansl ati on m ay be ove rc om e byev i dence thatthe i nter prete r had a speci al re l ati onshi p w ith one o fthe parti es that w oul d i nd i cate8 N o. 07

- 3914

a m otive to transla t e fal sely. In th at situa tion, th e interprete r c an n ot fai rl y b e a ssum ed to be the “j oi nt ag ent” of the par ti es. S ee i d. This i s co nsi ste nt with th e p osi ti on t ake n by our si ste r ci rcui ts. S om e ci rcui ts presum e the adm i ssibi l i ty oftr ansl ate d stat em ents that ar e o therw i se adm i ssibl e unl ess the r e i s a s ho wi ngo fu nr e l i ab i l i t y o ra mo t i v e t o mi s l e a d. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. D a S i l va , 7 25 F.2d 82 8, 832 (2d Cir. 1983 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. B e l t r an , 761 F.2d 1, 9 (1st C ir. 1985); U nited S t a t es v. A lva rez , 755 F.2d 830 , 859-60 (11thCir. 1985 )

. Otherci rcui ts em plo y a f our- f acto r tes t t o check f or l i kel y b i as orunrel i abi l i ty on a cas e-by- case bas i s. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Naze m i an , 9 48 F.2d 522, 527 (9th C ir. 1991); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ar t i nez- Gayt an , 213 F.3d 890, 89 2 (5th C ir. 2000 )

. S uch court s co nsi der: “[ 1] wh i ch party s up pli ed th e i nt er pr et er, [ 2] whethe rthe i nt er pr et er had a ny m oti ve to m i sl ead ordi sto rt, [ 3] the i nter prete r’ s qual i fi cati ons and l anguage sk i l l, and [ 4] wh etheract i ons tak en su bs eque ntt o the c o nv er sa ti o n wer e co ns i st en t w i ththe sta tem ents as tr ansl ate d.” Naze m i an , 94 8 F.3d at52 7 (enu m eration ad d ed ). I n Ge r ma n o ’ s c a s e , th e C A s e r v e d a s “ n o mo r e th an a l anguage co nd uit ” be tw een Ger m ano an d Sage

. S ee Da Si l va , 725 F.2d at 83 2 (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). I nd ee d , t he te rm “l anguage co nd uit ” i s a n eve n bet ter d escrip tion of a C A than of a forei gn l an gu age interp reter. Unl i k e ani nt er pr et er, a CA doe s no t n eed to s el ec t th e bestword to co nvey a par ti cul arm eani ng ( f orexam ple , shoul d the Engl i sh word “kno w ” be tr ansl ate d i n Fr ench as “ savoir ” or “ co nn a ître ”? ). T he CA si m pl y r ea ds o uttheN o. 07

- 3914 9 E n glis h w or d s fro m th e t ex t s h e s ee s, an d th en ty p es in th e E n glis h w or d s fro m th e v oic e s h e h ea rs . Vo ice -re c og n it i o n c o mpu t e r s ma y s o me d a yr e p l a c e th e h u ma n C As al tog ether, atwh i ch poi nt the re w il lbe no t echnol ogi cal di ffer en ce be twe en te l eph o ni c co m m uni ca ti o ns am o ng h e a r i n gp e r s o n s a n d th o s e i n v o l v i n gp e r s o n s w i th i mpa ired hear i ng. Curre ntl y, however, we have the hum an syste m . I T A ha s p ointed to no eviden ce that w ou ld u nd erm i n e the pr esum pti on o fadm i ssibi l i ty ofthe CA ’ s t ra nsm i tte d stat em ents, a s a cl ose r l oo k a t TRS c om m unica

ti ons shows. Fi rs t, Germ ano did notsupply the CA . I t was the i nd epend ent TRS ser vi ce, wh i ch operate s under detai l ed fed e r a lr e gu l at i o ns , tha t au to m at i ca l l y c o nne ct ed Ger m an o to a r an do m l y s el ec te d ope rator to f ac i l i ta te the TRS conve rs ati on. S ee 47 C.F

. R. § 64. 60 3; http: //w w w . f cc. gov/ c gb /c on su m er fac ts /7 11 .h tm l. S ec o nd, the CA had no mot i ve t o mis l ea d o rdi st o r t. I TA d oe s n otas se rtt h a t t h e C A h ad an y p rior rela tio n sh ip w i th ei therparty ( and the chance s o fthi s a re vani sh in gly l ow), northat the CA had any m oti ve to tr ansm i t s tat emen t s i na c c ur a t e l y . F e de r al r e g ul a t i o ns r e qu i r e the CA to t r an smi t st at ement s ve rba ti m a nd in r ea lt i m e, thus greatly redu cing th e ch an ce of ev en un inten tional distortion. See 47 C

. F.R. § 64.604(a)( 1)(v ii) , ( a)(2) (i i)

. ( W e are r emi nde d o fthe a dve r ti se m en ts tha t a lar g e co m pan y fu r n i s h i n gc e l l u l a rt e l e p h o n e s e r v i c e h a s r u n fr o m t i me to tim e, in wh i ch a m an sa ys ove r and overag ai n “can you hearm e no w ?” F arto o m any c onventi onalte l ephone cal l s a re m ar re d b y sta ti c o r bro ken s i gnal s that10 N o. 07

- 3914 d i s t o r t th e me s s a g e th a t r e a c h e s th e l i s t e n e r . T h o s e f l aw s go to th e w eig h t o f th e e vid en c e, n otto its ad m iss ibilit y.) T hird , th e C A ’s qu ali fi cation s and l an gu age skill s are p re sc rib ed by fed er al re gu lat ion s. C A s m u st “b e s u ffici en tly t r aine d t o effec ti ve l y m ee t the s pec i al i ze d c o m m uni cati ons needs o f in d ivi du al s with hear i ng and speec h disabi l i ti es. ” 4 7 C. F. R. § 64. 604( a) ( 1) ( i )

. They “ m ust hav e co m pet en t sk i l l s i n ty pi ng, g r amm ar, [an d ] s pel l i ng ” an d “m u st p os se ss c lea r an d art icu lat e v oic e c om m u n ica tio n s.” 4 7C. F

. R. § 6 4

. 6 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i i )

. I n a ddi t i o n, “ CAs mus tp r o v i de a typi ng spee d ofa m i ni m um o f60 words p er m i nute” an d the r egul at i o ns r equi r e th e TRS p rovi dert o a dm i ni st er“ o r al

- to
- type t es ts o fCA spe ed. ” 47C. F

. R. § 6 4

. 6 0 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i i i )

. T h e s e qu a l i fi c a t i o n s , ma n d a t e d b y l a w, provi de m or e a ssur ance ofr el i abl e t ra nsm i ssi on than i s o ften the cas e with l ay f or ei gn l anguage i nter prete rs . Thu s, eve n i f i t m ay be harder f or one to say of CA s t hat th e p ar tie s im p licit ly a gr ee d to u s e t h em as an int er m ed iary, the s tr o nga ss ur an ce s o fr el i ab i l i tytha t th e r egul at i o ns provi de f orthe CA s s up porto ur t re at i ng the m as so l el y a “la n gu ag e c on d u it.” T h e E q u al E m p loy m en t O p p or tu n ity C om m iss io n , in i ts am icu s c ur i aeb r i efs uppo r tingGe r m an o , s tr es se s th e f act that the g ove rni ng r egul ati ons e x p l i ci tl y pr ohibi t a C A “fro m int en tio n ally alt er in g a rela ye d co n ve rs at ion,” an d th e re gu lat ion s re q u ire th at op er at or s “ re lay all c on ve rs at ion s v erb at im u n les s t h e re lay u se r sp ec ifica lly requ ests su m m arization.” 47 C.F. R

. § 64. 604(a) (2 )(ii ). The Com m i ssi on a l so note s th at i t would have bee n i mpo s s ib l e f o r Ge r man o t o ha v e a c qu i r e d a ny r e c o r d ofN o. 07

- 3914 11 h is c on ve rs at ion w ith Sa ge (e v e n as su m in g h e c ou ld iden tify w hich of m an y C A s assisted him on tha t d a y ), be ca us e CA s ar e pr o hibi te d fr o m “ [ k ] ee pi ngr ec o r ds o fthe co nt en t o fa ny c o nv er sa ti o n b ey o nd the dur at i o n o fthe c all.” 47C .F.R . § 64 .60 4(a )(2) (i). Re gu lat ion s a l s o forb id CA s fr o m “di sc l o sing th e co nt en t o f an y r el ayed conv e r s a t i o n, ” e x c e p tas r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 7 0 5 o fth e C o mm unica ti ons A ct, wh i ch author i zes t he di vul gi ng o f co nv er sa ti o ns o nl y pur su an t to s ubpo en a o r“ o n dem an d ofo ther lawfulautho ri ty. ” 4 7 U.S

. C. § 6 05( a) ( 5)

- ( 6) ; 47 C. F

. R. § 6 4

. 6 0 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( i )

. I ti s n o ta ta l lc e r t a i n th a tt he sta tutory e xcepti on e ncom passes di sco ver y in ci vi ll i ti gatio n, and eve n i fi t di d, i t would be cl ose to i m poss ible f ora CA to r ecal la si ngl e co nver sat i on fro m se ver al yea rs ag o pu re l y fro m m em or y. F i na l l y, it is tel l i ngtha t th e ac ti o ns I TA to o ka fte rthe conve rs ati on were consis tent w i th the tr ansm i tte d stat em ents. S i x days a fterthe TRS conve rs atio n, S age em ai l ed G erm an o to not ify him that I T A w as no t intereste d i n p ursui ng em plo ym ent forhi m . Germ ano i nquir ed w hether the withd ra w alo fthe i nvi tat i on t o i nter vi ew was re l ate d to hi s dea fne ss . S ag e di d not respo nd wi ths ur pr i se a t th e prem i s e o fthe que s t i o n ( tha ta n i nt e r v i e w wa s i n f act offer ed), nordi d he cl ar i fy a ny al l ege d m i sund er sta nd i ng. I nd eed, he ne ve rr efut ed i n a ny wayGe r m an o ’ s as serti o n that Sa g e o ffer ed Ger m an o a n int er vi ew dur i ngthe J une 15 TRS conve rs ati on . Th e o nl y a cti on “ i nconsi ste nt” w ith th e in te rv iew in vit at ion w as ITA ’s fa ilu re ev en tu ally to int er vie w h im , an d th at e ve n t c an be ex p lain ed p lau sib ly as the r esul t o fd isc rim i nati on o n the part ofo ther deci si onm ake rs atI TA , wh o l earned ofGerm an o’s dis

ab i l i tya nd o nl y the n wi th dr ew the i nv i ta ti o n.12 N o. 07

- 3914 N atur al l y, a fi nd ero ffa c t w oul d not be co m pel l ed to f i n d d i s c r i mi n a t i o n o n c e I T A s u b mi t s i t s e v i d e n c e o ft he TRS c o nv er sa ti o n a nd the b as i s f o ri ts hi r i ngde ci si o n. The re l i abi l i ty anal ysi s o fthe CA ’s tr ansm i tte d stat em ents i s s i m plya thre shol d i nquir y t o est abl i sh i ts adm i ssibi l i ty. As we i m pl i ed a m o m en t ag o , I TA w il l be fr ee t o a r g ue that the t ri ero ff act sh ou ld n ot att ach g re at w ei ght t o thos e t ra nsm i tte d stat em ents. Fo r now , we hol d onl y that a ce rt i fi ed com m unica ti ons ass i sta nt, tr ansm i ttin g s tat em ents thro ugh a t el eco m m unica ti ons re l ay ser vi ce, does not add a l aye r ofhear say, unl ess the opponent o fthat evi dence can pr odu c e sp eci fi c ev i dence ofunrel i abi l i ty o ra mo t i v e t o mi s l e a d. The r e ar e st r o ngpol i cyre as o ns f o ra dm i tt i ngt es ti m o ny ab o ut th e co nt en ts o f TRS co nv er sa ti o ns . Con gress m an dated the cre ati on o fa tel eco m m unica ti ons sys te m f or p er so n s w ith h ea rin g a n d sp ee c h d isa b ilitie s t h at is “functi onal l y e quiva l ent” to thos e use d by no nd i sabl ed perso ns. 47U

. S. C. § 2 25 . Denying the adm i ssibi l i ty of st at em en ts m ad e d u rin g a T R S c on v e r sa tio n w ou ld st rip thos e with hear i ng di sabi l i ti es ofa vi talsource of evi dence avai l abl e t o hear i ng per sons. Deafper sons coul d not con du c ti mpo r t a ntda y - t o - da y a ff a i r s o v e rthe p ho ne , s u c h a s c a l l i n gth e ba n ko rth e d o c t o r, w i th th e s a me ab i l i tyt o r ely o n the s ta te m en ts made to them b y the o th erp arty th ati s enj o y ed byhe ar i ngpe r so ns . S ucha re sul t i s a t o dd s with Congre ss’ s int en t t o m ake di sabl ed pers ons full and e qual parti ci pants i n so ci ety
. S ee 42 U

. S. C

. § 12101(a)(8). Thu s, we fi nd no sound basi s in l aw , f act, o r pol i cy o n wh i c h t o d i s t i n g u i s h th e r o l e o fc o mmun i c a t i o nsN o. 07

- 3914 13

ass i sta nts fro m thato fr el i abl e, unbi ase d fo re i gn langu age interp reters. S age’s state m en ts, w hich w ere conve yed to Germ ano not sol el y thro ugh the m ove m ent o f electron s bu t also throu gh the C A ’s int erm ed iation, are t h e r e f or e n oth ea rs ay , an d th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in excl ud i ng i t o n thi s ba si s.

III W i th Germ ano’ s e vi dence abo ut hi s c onversa ti on with Sag e pr oper l y in the re cor d, w e m ust dete rm i ne wh ether he has su bm itted enou gh eviden ce to s u rvive sum m ary j ud gm ent. Germ ano saw an onl i ne j ob advert i sem ent, anno unc i ngtha t I TA w as s eeki ng a ppl i ca nt s f o rthe p os itio n of tax ad vis or . T h e po st in g no te d th a t t h e m in im um e duca ti o n r equi r ementwas a mast er ’ s degree a nd that tw o to fi ve yea rs o fr el evantwork experi ence w as des i r ed, l i st i nge xa m pl es o fr el ev an t a reas, i nc l udi ngt ax , cor pora te, fi nance, es tat e planni ng, and busi ness advi si ng. O n J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 5 , i n r e s p o n s e t o th e p o s t i n g, G e r m an o em ai l ed Ron S age , one of tw o deci si onm ake rs f orI TA with re spect to hi ring, hi s re sum e and c ove r l ett er, w h i ch i nd i cate d that he had earne d a J

. D. fro m Quinni pia c Un i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f L a w a n d a n L

. L

. M. fr o m G e o r g e t o wn U n ive r s i t y L aw C en te r, h ad p ar tic ip at ed in a ta x clin ic f ortwo se m est er s, and ha d w or ke d as a cl ai m s pro cess or f or t w o yea rs . ( Sag e a ctual l y work s forInter nati onal Pr o fi t A ss o ci at i o n, Inc . ( “I PA”) , b utI PA i s a m an ag ement consul ti ng co m pany to wh i ch I TA del ega tes so m e o fi ts adm i ni str ati ve and re c rui ti ng ta sks , and so I PA i s a n ag en t o f ITA .)14 N o. 07

- 3914 O n Ju n e 1 0, Sa ge forw ar d ed G e r m an o’s res u m e t o T im Fos ter ( the othe r deci si onm ake r) to see i f Fos ter ha d an “i nter esti n thi s ind ivid ual

. ” About fi ve days l ate r, S age l eft a vo i ce m ai lo n Ge r m an o ’ s m ac hi ne a sk i ngGe r m an o to cal lhi m so thattheyco uld di scuss the pos ition ofta x consul tant. Germ ano re turned S age ’ s ca l lo n J une 15; thi s i s the cal lwe described ear l i erthatw as hand l ed thro ugh the TRS and the com m unica ti ons assi sta nt. Giv en the way the c all w as conducted, S age i nfe rr ed that Germ ano had a hear i ng i m pai rm ent. Du ring the Ju n e 15 TRS ca l l, S age i nvi ted Germ ano to c om e t o Illin o i s f o r an int er vie w an d to ld h im th at h is tr av el e x p en se s w ou ld be co ve re d b y IT A . H e a lso to ld Ger m an o tha t he woul d c o nt ac t hi m a g ain with the tim e an d p lac e of th e int er vie w . A fte rw ar d s, S a g e to ld Fos terthathe ha d tal ked with Germ an o and that the use of th e TRS “ woul d i m pl y tha t [ Ger m an o i s] ha r d o fhe ari ng. ” Duri ng tha t s am e co nver sat i on, the d ec i si on was m ade notto hi re Germ ano. On J une 21, Sag e em ai l ed Germ ano and said , “A fter furthe r c onsider ati on, I TA has el ecte d to pu rs ue o ther ca ndi dat es who se qua l i fi ca ti o ns b et te rf i t the nee ds o fthe c lien t b as e.” T h e s am e d ay , G er m an o re sp on d ed b y e m ail, sta ti ng, “Iwo u ld li ke to i nquir e why Iwas offer ed an in te rv iew on Frid ay w it h you r c om p an y a n d n ow it i s be i ngwi th dr awn. I t se emed t o me dur i ngo urc o nve r sa ti o n o n F r i daytha t m y q ual i fi ca ti o ns i n f ac t m etthe needs o fyo ur cl i ents. Does the o p p or tu ni ty to i nter vi ew be i ngr ev o k ed p er ta i n t o my de afne ss ?” Ge r m an o went o n t o e xp l ain wha t co m m uni ca ti o ns a r r an g ement s heN o. 07

- 3914 15

uses to perf or m dai l y work, i nfo rm ed S ag e ofhi s abi l i ty to s p ea k and rea d l i ps, and ass ured S age thatthe “use of a n i n t e r p r e t e r r e a l l y i s min i s c u l e i n c o mp a r i s o n t o my w ork prod uc tivity. ” H e prov ide d thes e d etails “to ensu re that m i sperc epti ons w er e no t the so urce f orthe i nter vi ew opportunity bei ng w i thdrawn

. ” W i thi n thi rty m i nutes, S ag e r es po nde d b y e m ai l, a s f o l l o w s: “ H o ne st l y, the deci si on m ak ers di d discuss the topi c o fyo ur hea ring, but fel t thi s was an obsta cl e th at w as not i nsurm ountabl e. Si m plyst ate d, othe r candidate s [ si c ] exper i ence bett er fit th e n ee d s o f ou r c lien ts .” Ger m an o pur su ed a co m pl aint a gai ns t I TA w i ththe E qu al Em p loym en t O p p ortu nity C om m issi on (“E E O C ”). Larr y Lang, Executi ve Dir ecto r ofH um an Reso urces f or I PA , to l d the EEO C that Ger m an o w as not hi re d because th ey d ec id ed to h ire R ick E n riq u ez , w h o w as m or e q u alifi ed. Thi s s tory had it s hol es, however

. Enri quez was offer ed a j ob w i th ITA on J une 7 a nd acc epted i t o n J une 9, al m os t a week befo reGerm ano’ s J une 15 conve rs ati on w i th S age , i n w hi ch he was i nvi ted to i nter vi ew . I TA hi re d tax cons ultan ts on a r o lli ng basis; it continu ed to int erview and hire others after w ithd raw ing G er m a no’s intervie w o f f e r . T h e E E O C inv es tig at or th ou gh t t h at th e e vid en ce pr es en te d “ su bs ta nt i alc r edibi l i tyc ha l l en g es t o the Respondent’s vers i on o fev ents and i t’ s [ si c ] e xpl an at i o ns for th e fa i lu re to p ro c ee d w ith C h ar gin g P ar ty ’s c an d idac y . ” Aft err ec ei vinghi s r i g ht

- to
- su e l et te r, Ge r m an o fi l ed su i t i n di st r i ctc o ur t ag ainst t he de fen dan ts , a l l eg i ng d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n e mpl o y me n ti n v i o l a t i o n o fth e AD A.16 N o. 07

- 3914 IV To sur vi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n an AD A di scr i m i nati on cl aim , G er m ano m ust r ai se a t ri abl e i ssue on e ach elem en t of th e clai m . U nd er the fam il iar M cD onnell D o ug la s paradi gm , Germ ano m ust s how ( 1) thathe i s d isabl ed; ( 2) thathe i s qual i fi ed by educati on a nd exper ience and coul d perf or m the ess en tia l j ob functi ons w i th o rwi th o utr ea so nabl e ac co m m o dat i o n; ( 3) tha t he su ffer ed ana dverse e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n; a nd ( 4) tha t th e circum stan ces su rroun d ing the ad verse ac tio n sup p ort the i nfe re nce that hi s di sabi l i ty w as a dete rm i ni ng f acto r b eh in d th e a d ve rs e a c tio n . Law son v. CSXTransp. Inc. , 24 5 F. 3d 916 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ; se e Truj i l l o v. Pacif i Corp, 52 4 F

. 3d 1149 , 11 54 (1 0th C i r. 20 08)

. ( A l though thi s co urt has so m et i m es de sc ribed the l as t f ac to ra s r equi r i ngthe p l a i n tiff t o s h ow th at d isc rim in at ion is “m or e like ly than not, ” we have spoke n onl y o fan “ i nd ica tio n” that thi s is so, n ot a ce rt ai nty. S ee Laws on , 245 F. 3d at 922. That i s underst andabl e, bec ause i fw e requi re d a ce rt ai nty, then the differ ence between dir ect and ind ire c t proof w oul d be e ra sed. W e thi nk itis l ess co nfusing to speak, as th e Te nt h C ircuit d o e s, of evi d en ce su p p orting an “inferen c e” th at d isc rim in at ion w as “ a d et er m in in g fac to r.” T h is ev id en c e m igh t in vo lve , for ex a m p le, sh ow in g t h at sim ilarl y situate d peo p le w ithou t the sam e d isabil ity w ere tr eat ed bet ter

— a com m on str ate gy i n i nd i re ct proo fcas es, th ou gh n otth e o n ly on e.) Defe nd ants do not conte st th at G erm ano has s ati sfi ed th e fi r sta nd thi r d element s. Thu s, we st ar t bya sk i ng w hetherGerm ano has r ai sed a fac tu alquesti on withN o. 07

- 3914 17

r es pec t to hi s qua l i fi ca ti o ns a nd abil ity t o pe r f o r m the j ob w i th o r w i thout re aso nabl e a ccom m odati ons. I t i s be yond di sput e th at Germ ano sat i sfi ed at l eas t th e edu ca ti o n r equi r ement s f o rthe j ob. By su bmi tt i ng evi dence that defe nd ants offer ed hi m an i nter vi ew , for w hi ch they w oul d pay hi s t ra velexpenses , Germ ano ra i ses a tr i ab l e i ssu e w he th erhe was qua l i fi ed f o rthe j o b. I TA mi g h th a v e c o n c l u d e d th a th i s t a x c l i n i c a n d c l a i ms w or k were the equi val ent o fthe experi en c e it was looki ng f or; alternatively, i t m a y hav e con side red w ork experi ence desi rabl e, but not ess enti al. G er m ano al so poi nts t o tw o Tax A dvis or s who did n ot have at l eas t tw o ye ar s o fr el evantwork experi ence at the t i m e they w ere hired by I T A , and I T A ’s a d m issi on th at it consid ers f o re mpl o y me n ta p p l i c a n t s wh o d o n o th a v e a tl ea stt wo ye ar s o fr ele va n t w or k e x p er ien c e. A rat ion al jur y c ou ld i nfe r that the a m ount o fr el evantwork experi ence w as si m plya desi rabl e c rit eri on, but not a r e q ui r e m e ntf or the j ob, and thus that Ger m ano w as quali fi ed f orthe j ob. Ger m an o hi m se l fwas c o m pet en t to tes ti fy abo utthe re aso nabl e a ccom m odation s that would al l ow him to p er for m th e e ss en tia l fu n c tio n s o f th e job. In t h is a p p ea l, th e de fe nd a nt s di s pu t e Ge r man o ’ s l i p r e a di ngs k i l l s, th e am ou nt of tim e for w h ic h h e w ou ld n eed an interprete r, and hi s e sti m ate s o fthe hourly r ate char ged by a n i n terp reter. T he se issues are m aterial, bu t the y are conte ste d, and they can be reso l ved onlyby the tr i ero ff act. The re m ai ni ng el em ent t o be e xam i ned i s the fourth one: w hetherci rcum sta nces surr ounding the a dverse ac ti on supp or t the i nfe re nce that Ger m ano’ s di sabi l i ty w as a18 N o. 07

- 3914 d et er m in in g fa c to r for ITA ’s d ec isi on ab ru p tly to te rm in a t e i t s i n t e r e s ti n h i r i n gh i m. Ger m an o r ai se s a tr i ab l e que st i o n b y po i nt i ngt o the suspi ci ous t i m i ng o fthe w i thdrawal ofthe in ter vi ew in vit at ion (sh or tly aft er th e d efe n d an ts lea r n e d of h is d i s ab i l i t y, w i th n o o th e rn e w i n f o r ma t i o n ab o u th i m) tog etherwith the defendants’ shi fti ng e xplanat i ons of why the y d id no t hi r e o ri nt er vi ew Ge r m an o . Dur i ngthe EE OC i nvest i ga tion, I PA cl ai m ed that Germ ano w as not hi re d because i t cho se a s uperi orcandi date, E n riquez, f or the pos i ti on. Thi s e xplanat i on la ter pro ved to be f al se, be ca us e Enr i que z ac ce pte d hi s po si ti o n b efo r e I TA i nv ited Ger m ano to i nter vi ew . Latero n, the defe nd ants ass er ted thattheydi d n ot h ire Germ ano because he was altogeth er un qua lified f orthe posi ti on, as o pp ose d to m er ely be in g les s q u alifie d th an an ot h er sp ec ific c an d idate. They take this p osi ti on in the f ace ofthe conte m pora neous evi dence thattheyd ee m ed Germ ano quali fi ed enough t o offerhi m an inter vi ew atthei r own expense. U nd er t he bu rd en -shifti ng fram ew ork of M cD onnell D ougl as , o nce the pl ai nti ffm ake s o ut a prim a faci e ca se , the defe nse m ay offera l egi ti m ate , nondi scr i m i natory r eas on f o rh a v i ngt a k e n the a dv e r s e e mpl o y men ta c t i o n a g a i ns t the pl ai nti ff

. The bur den th en f al l s o n the pla i nti ffto s h o w th a tth e p r o ffe r e d r e a s o n i s me r e l y a p r e t e x t, mean i ng tha t the em plo yeri tse l fdi d not be l i eve i ts own st or y. I TA has offer ed a l egi ti m ate, nondi scr i m i natory r eas on for n ot p u rs u in g G er m an o fu rt h er : it w an te d be tt er ca n d idates. Germ ano, however, has p oi nted to ev i dence that w ou ld p er m it a trie r of fa c t to fin d ITA ’s re as on p re te x tu al.N o. 07

- 3914 19 Forthe m ostpart, i t i s the s am e e vi dence w e hav e j ust r e v i e we d i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th th e f o u r th e l e me n t o ft he prim a faciecase, inc lud ing th e c ircu m stan ces of the intervi ew o fferand I TA ’ s inconsi ste nt exp lanati ons f ori ts acti ons. * * * The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ric t c ou rti s R EVER S ED , a nd the case i s R EM AN D ED f o rfur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t w i th thi s o pini on. On re m and, Cir cui t Rul e 36 shal lapply

.

9- 12- 08