This is an employment discrimination case.
Spencer, the plaintiff, is an older Black woman. She is an employee at BMS Corporation.
She interviews for a new position at BMS, a position in the Marketing Department.
The interview is with Poon, Gentile, and Oaks, marketing employees at BMS. Gentile is Director of Marketing. Oaks is Vice-President of Marketing. Poon is a grunt, a low-level employee in the Marketing Department.
After the interview, Spencer spoke with Walker, the Director of Human Resources at BMS, and asked him how the interview went.
Spencer does not get the job.
Spencer sues; she brings a civil action against BMS.
Spencer claims that she was denied the job because of her race, her gender, and her age.
At the trial plaintiff’s counsel makes the following offer of
evidence:
Spencer, the plaintiff, to testify that
Walker told her that
{he [Walker] had spoken with Poon ; and that}
Poon had said that he believed that Gentile and Oaks were concerned about Spencer because
Gentile and Oaks had told him, Poon, that
Dr. Neu, an influential father of an employee of BMS, had said [to them?] he did not want an older black woman to be his daughter’s supervisor.
This looks like pretty awful hearsay junk: in fact, it looks like hearsay several times over – perhaps four times over, and perhaps even five times over. So the evidence is clearly inadmissible. Right?
In any event, isn’t it a fact that there’s no evidence to show that most of these guys knew what they were talking about, to show that they had personal knowledge of the reasons for Spencer’s failure to get the promotion that she wanted? So the offer of evidence is clearly bad. Right?
That’s what the trial court thought.
What do you think?