Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay claim

Text: 38 On appeal, Ramírez asserts that the evidence and statements that we have just described constitute inadmissible hearsay. `Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial, see Fed.R.Evid. 802, or for summary judgment purposes, see Vazquez v. Lopez-Rosario, 134 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir.1998), unless it falls within one of the exceptions specified in the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 802. In Ramírez's view, none of the evidence that he seeks to exclude is covered by a hearsay exception. 39 At the risk of stating the obvious, whether a particular statement falls within a hearsay exception is relevant only if the statement is, in fact, hearsay. We must therefore consider, as an initial matter, whether any of the evidence at issue — either Riberio's report or the physician statements — is hearsay. By definition, hearsay is a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). BIPI asserts that it did not offer the evidence at issue to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We agree. 40 The matter asserted in both Riberio's report and the physician statements is essentially that Ramírez's sampling practice was inconsistent with company policy and the PDMA. The company offers these assertions to explain the basis for its decision to terminate Ramírez from his employment. That explanation alone has evidentiary significance. See Zapata-Matos v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc., 277 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir.2002) (noting that in an employment discrimination case, once the plaintiff has met the low standard of showing prima facie discrimination, the employer must articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason [for the adverse employment action] in response). In short, the report and physician statements were not offered to prove that Ramírez engaged in misconduct, but rather to demonstrate that his superiors had reason, based on a thorough investigation, to believe that he had. 41 In an attempt to rescue his claim, Ramírez asserts that Ribiero's report and the physician statements were, in fact, submitted to demonstrate that Ramírez violated company and industry-wide sampling policies, i.e., for the truth of the matter asserted. He maintains that BIPI has defended its decision to terminate him on the grounds that he engaged in such misconduct, rather than on the more nuanced ground that it thought he had engaged in such misconduct. We reject this reasoning. Although BIPI may have framed its argument inconsistently at times, it explained in its motion for summary judgment that the results of [the] investigation into plaintiff's sampling practices ... led to the conclusion that plaintiff had incurred in serious violations of the PDMA and Company policies. BIPI further explained, in opposing Ramírez's motion in limine, that the evidence at issue was not being offered to prove that the plaintiff in fact engaged in the practice of over-sampling or violated company policies, but to show that this was the information defendant had before it and that defendant considered this information when it made its decision to terminate plaintiff's employment. In short, BIPI has defended its decision on the grounds that it thought, based on its investigation, that Ramírez had engaged in misconduct. 10