Brett Trenier v. Hms Host, Inc., 681 F. App'x 597

Plaintiff Brett Trenier, a racial minority, applied for a manager position at Host International, Inc. and was not hired; he sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for race discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination.
The district court granted summary judgment for Host, excluding witness Jamilah DeRoux’s testimony as hearsay.
DeRoux reported coworkers’ statements: Krissman laughed when asked if race was the reason, Filart said she feared race would prevent Trenier’s hire, and Matthews allegedly said “they didn’t want to put another black person in there.”
Host argued the statements were inadmissible hearsay and proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decision; Matthews denied making the alleged remark.
The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in excluding DeRoux’s testimony because it fell within Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) as opposing-party statements by employees on matters within the scope of employment.
The Ninth Circuit found DeRoux’s testimony created genuine disputes of material fact as to discriminatory motive and pretext, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of DeRoux’s testimony	DeRoux’s recounting of coworkers’ statements is admissible as statements by the employer’s agents on a matter within the scope of employment	The statements are hearsay and were properly excluded	Reversed: statements fall under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) and are admissible
Sufficiency to survive summary judgment on discriminatory motive	DeRoux’s testimony and other evidence create a genuine dispute that race motivated the hiring decision	Host’s nondiscriminatory reasons stand and summary judgment was proper	Reversed: testimony creates material factual disputes about motive and pretext
Burden allocation at summary judgment	Trenier met the minimal prima facie burden under California law to raise a triable issue	Host contended Trenier failed to show discriminatory motive and thus no triable issue	Held: plaintiff met initial burden; credibility and weighing are for the jury, not summary judgment
Whether credibility determinations can be made on summary judgment	Credibility disputes (e.g., DeRoux v. Matthews) should not be resolved on summary judgment	Host urged court to credit its witnesses and resolve inconsistencies	Held: credibility is for the jury; summary judgment inappropriate when credibility is contested

Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (statements by a supervisor attributed to the company fall within Rule 801(d)(2)(D))
Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (prima facie proof standard for discrimination at summary judgment is minimal)
Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (elements of a prima facie employment discrimination case under California law)