Diane E. Spencer, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, a Delaware Corporation and E.R. Squibb &… (New Jersey 1998)

Summary

The court held that the personnel director's statement explaining why Spencer was denied a promotion was admissible under the party-admission hearsay exception. The statement had sufficient reliability because the director participated in the hiring process, identified the supervisors involved, and conveyed statements concerning matters within those employees' employment duties. The court affirmed the Appellate Division and remanded the case for trial.

Holding

Personal knowledge under the party-admission exception. The personnel director's statement was admissible even without proof that he personally observed or participated in every underlying conversation. His role in the hiring process placed him in a position to know Spencer's employment prospects, and the identified supervisors were directly involved in the hiring decision and had sufficient personal knowledge of matters within their employment duties.

Double hearsay. The statement was admissible despite its multiple layers because each relevant layer satisfied an applicable hearsay exception. The personnel director's statement concerned a matter within the scope of his employment and was made during that employment, while the supervisors' statements likewise concerned matters within the scope of their employment and were made during their employment.

Reliability, probative value, and credibility. The trial court erred by excluding the statement based on concerns that effectively went to Spencer's credibility and the lack of corroboration. Those concerns could affect the weight of the evidence, but they did not make the statement inadmissible, and the statement's probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice or other listed risks.

Diane E. Spencer, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, a Delaware Corporation and E.R. Squibb &…

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by