Opinion ID: 2977760
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Capestany’s Statements

Text: Morris claims that the district court improperly relied on Capestany’s statements in its decision. Her affidavit was submitted to the district court as an exhibit attached to Family Dollar’s motion for summary judgment. Capestany’s affidavit included the following facts: Morris called her on November 7, 2004 to tell her that he would not be returning to work; Morris did not come to the store on November 8; and Morris called her on November 8 to ask that she have Melendez call him. Because Capestany did not appear for her scheduled deposition, Morris filed a motion in limine, requesting that the district court not consider Capestany’s affidavit. The district court did not rule on this motion but referenced Capestany’s statements in its opinion. On appeal, Morris contends that the district court erred in “basing its decision” on these alleged hearsay statements. Because we find that Morris did not establish a prima facie FMLA case, Capestany’s statements about Morris’s termination are irrelevant to our analysis. Therefore, resolution of the potential hearsay issues is not necessary.10