Opinion ID: 196019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Woodman's Demonstration of Pretext

Text: 24 The twofold thrust implicit in the evidentiary proffers made by Woodman was that the November 15, 1991, LeBlanc memorandum severely denigrating his work performance was a pretext for unlawful age-based discrimination on the part of HC, as indicated not only by Woodman's own work-performance evidence but by the vicarious HC admission, through LeBlanc, that new management disfavored older employees. 25 The factfinding inquiry into pretext focuses on whether the employer believed its stated reason to be credible. Goldman, 985 F.2d at 1118 (quoting Mesnick v. General Electric Co., 950 F.2d 816, 824 (1st Cir.1991)) (emphasis added). Thus, Woodman's evidence, including the vicarious admission made through LeBlanc--if credited by the factfinder--would be adequate not only to permit a reasonable inference that HC's articulated justification for Woodman's dismissal was a mere pretext for intentional age discrimination, but also to generate a grave suspicion of mendacity respecting the highly unfavorable performance rating made in the LeBlanc memorandum five days prior to Woodman's dismissal. See Hicks, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. 3 Consequently, the putative vicarious admission by HC, through LeBlanc, is crucial to our de novo determination whether HC was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Goldman, 985 F.2d at 1116. 26 (i) The Vicarious Admission 27 On appeal, HC argues that the excluded statement does not come within Evidence Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because LeBlanc was only a first-line supervisor, with no authority to make termination decisions. 4 However that may be, Rule 801(d)(2)(D) does not contemplate--as HC seems to suppose--that the statement be shown to have been made by the employee at the instance of her employer, compare Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(C) with Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D), but only that the declarant's statement concern matters within the scope of her agency or employment. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). See, e.g., Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 793 F.2d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1262 (9th Cir.1982). 28 The record reflects that LeBlanc was acting within the scope of her employment in (i) attending the HC management meeting, (ii) assessing the performance of bowl department employees under her supervision (including Woodman), and (iii) in recommending that Woodman be relieved from his duties. Thus, the circumstantial evidence proffered in the Woodman affidavit provided a plainly sufficient foundation, see Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(2), for finding both that LeBlanc was directly involved in the reduction in force and that the excluded statement concerned matters within the scope of her employment. Indeed, any contrary suggestion is belied by HC's firm reliance on LeBlanc's adverse performance evaluation as the principal justification for its decision to terminate Woodman. Finally, the circumstantial evidence proffered in the Woodman affidavit attests, and the excluded statement itself reflects, that LeBlanc purported to be communicating to Woodman information acquired at the HC management meeting. 29 We conclude that though the Woodman affidavit may reflect that LeBlanc's description of HC management's attitude toward older workers was predicated on more than one statement made at the management meeting in LeBlanc's presence, her statement to Woodman was not hearsay, even though offered for its truth. See Hybert v. Hearst Corp., 900 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1990) (finding no error where trial court, in ADEA action, admitted into evidence the statement--made by manager to subordinate--that it's a concern of some of the guys in New York that some of our people in their sixties are going to be replaced); see also Brookover v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 893 F.2d 411, 417-18 (1st Cir.1990) (holding that nurses' statements that bed restraints should have been used on patient were made within scope of nurses' employment); Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 793 F.2d at 8-9 (holding that statement by lower level accountant, charged with preparing billings relating to employer's leases, concerned matter within scope of accountant's employment, in circumstances where information upon which proffered statement was based was located in file in accountant's possession within the scope of employment). Accordingly, the evidentiary ruling constituted an abuse of discretion, as it was based upon a misapplication of Rule 801(d)(2)(D) and resulted in a denial of Woodman's right to trial on the ADEA claim. See Siegal v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 921 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1990). IV