Case Name: HOTELERA NACO, INC., Appellant, v. Maria E. CHINEA, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-02-18
Citations: 708 So. 2d 961
Docket Number: No. 96-2887
Parties: HOTELERA NACO, INC., Appellant, v. Maria E. CHINEA, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 961–962

Head Matter:
HOTELERA NACO, INC., Appellant, v. Maria E. CHINEA, Appellee.
No. 96-2887.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 18, 1998.
Opinion Amending Decision on Rehearing April 22, 1998.
Cooper & Wolfe and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.
Alice E. Warwick, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
FLETCHER, Judge.
Maria E. Chinea obtained a judgment against her former employer, Hotelera Naco, Inc., on a claim under Dade County Code, section 11A-27 which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against or discharge an employee on account of pregnancy. We conclude that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of reports heard by the employer that, instead of being at home convalescing after giving birth to her stillborn child, plaintiff had been seen shopping and may have travelled to the Bahamas. The trial court excluded this evidence on the ground that it was hearsay and not relevant. However, we agree with appellant's contention that, because the reports were being offered to prove the employer's state of mind in deciding to terminate the plaintiff and not for their truth, the evidence was not inadmissible as hearsay. See § 90.801(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995); Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 327 So.2d 193 (Fla.1976); Williams v. State, 338 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Also, because the evidence was intended to prove the employer's nondiscriminatory intent in discharging the plaintiff, it cannot be said that it was not relevant. See § 90.401, .402, Fla. Stat. (1995); Duncan v. State, 616 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); E.B. v. State, 531 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
We therefore reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
. This court's opinion should not be read to diminish in any way the profound grief and emotional trauma suffered by the plaintiff over the loss of her child. However, under the circumstances of this case, we have no choice but to reverse and remand.