Opinion ID: 2754383
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Englard’s Deposition Statement

Text: Hamilton challenges the district court’s exclusion of Robert Englard’s statement about hypothetical racial bias. During Englard’s deposition, Hamilton’s counsel asked about Englard’s earlier comment to Hamilton that the entire grounds crew at Waters Landing was African American. Although Englard denied making the comment, he agreed with Hamilton’s counsel that it was possible for “someone” who heard such a comment to think that the hypothetical speaker “might” have racial bias. We agree with the district court: “Englard’s comment about how some unnamed, hypothetical person might perceive his remark is pure speculation.” Under Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 701, lay testimony must arise from the witness’s “personal knowledge of the matter” 11 and be “rationally based on the witness’s perception.” 12 Indeed, the Advisory Committee explains Rule 701(a) as the “familiar requirement of first-hand knowledge or observation.” 13 We also require that lay opinion testimony be “helpful to the jury.” 14 Nowhere does Englard, as Hamilton contends, assert his own opinion as to the meaning of the comment or make an admission regarding his own state of mind when allegedly making it. His testimony about the hypothetical “someone” has no basis in his own perceptions, observations, or knowledge. Furthermore, his opinion as to what “someone” might think is not helpful to 11 FED. R. EVID. 602. 12 FED. R. EVID. 701(a). 13 FED. R. EVID. 701 advisory committee’s note. 14 United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 137 (5th Cir. 2012). 6 Case: 14-10373 Document: 00512845401 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 No. 14-10373 the factfinder. The relevant issue is whether Englard acted with racial bias, not whether “someone” else might think him to be racist. Englard’s speculation as to that hypothetical listener’s state of mind is irrelevant and unhelpful. We conclude that the district court made no manifest error in excluding this testimony. 2. Hamilton’s Deposition Testimony About Eaton’s Statements Hamilton also challenges the district court’s exclusion of three statements, made during her own deposition, that she attributed to Laura Eaton, her former manager at AVPM. The first statement allegedly occurred immediately after Eaton had been fired from AVPM. According to Hamilton, Eaton lamented the difficulty of “get[ting] another job at [their] age” and faulted AVPM for hiring “bubbly white little girls.” Eaton’s second statement also occurred during a conversation between Hamilton and Eaton, this time after Hamilton’s termination. In it, Eaton implied that Hamilton’s termination was motivated by race—specifically, that AVPM had concerns about the African American grounds crew at Waters Landing, who “couldn’t intimidate [Hamilton] like they’re used to doing with other women that don’t speak up.” Eaton’s third statement occurred a few days after Hamilton’s termination, when Eaton called to tell her that the company discovered it had fired her “for no reason.” According to Hamilton, Eaton then asked if AVPM had contacted Hamilton about returning to work. The district court excluded all three statements as inadmissible hearsay. It also excluded the first two statements as speculation and the third for lack of foundation. 7 Case: 14-10373 Document: 00512845401 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 No. 14-10373 Hamilton claims that Eaton’s statements are not hearsay as provided in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). 15 However, “[u]nder our general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” 16 We find extraordinary circumstances when “the issue involved is a pure question of law and a miscarriage of justice would result from our failure to consider it.” 17 Hamilton failed to respond to AVPM’s objections before the district court and makes no argument before us as to extraordinary circumstances, thus waiving this theory on appeal. 18