Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conditions upon return from short-term disability

Text: 66 Finally, Ramírez asserts that he was singled out for adverse disparate treatment upon his return from short term disability, when BIPI imposed work rules, conditions, and examinations not required [of] other [PSRs]. The only sources that Ramírez cites for his contention that similar requirements were not imposed on other PSRs are his own deposition testimony to that effect and a letter that he wrote to Díaz regarding his compliance with the conditions, in which he asserted that after speaking with Ruiz and Oliver, he learned that after their short term disability, they were never required to comply with these directives or similar directives. This evidence does not help Ramírez. First, the statements of Ruiz and Oliver are inadmissible hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), 802. Second, even if the evidence were admissible, it still does not establish that Ramírez was subjected to adverse disparate treatment based on his age. As Ramírez's own statements indicate, Ruiz — who is eight years older than Ramírez — was not subjected to similar treatment. 18