Carden, Raymond C. v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that hearsay evidence was properly excluded where proponent of evidence failed to satisfy requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that court could infer from record who the “they” were because “they” never were identified in record
• excluding testimony under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) where supervisor only stated to plaintiff that “they” wanted a younger person for the job and the record did not establish a foundation as to the identity of “they”
• excluding hearsay statement of unidentified de-clarant alleged to be employee of defendant and explaining that “declarations of unidentified persons are rarely admitted.... due in part to the heavy burden which rests on the proponent of the evidence” (citation omitted)
• “A district court judge is granted broad discretion in determining what is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
• statement made by unidentified “they” in the workplace does not meet evidentiary requirements for admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(D)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).