Recently, in Valerio v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2025 WL 686028 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), Kissairis Valerio, a Black and Hispanic female officer, was fired from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department (MTAPD) after allegedly mishandling department-issued equipment. She argued that she was wrongfully fired based on race/color discrimination and national origin discrimination because white, non-Hispanic male officers had committed similar infractions but were not fired. To support her claim, Valerio cited statements from coworkers who allegedly told her that male officers were treated more leniently for similar offenses. However, these statements were inadmissible hearsay since they were not supported by firsthand testimony or documentation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of her case, stating: “Valerio offers no admissible evidence to support her claim of disparate treatment.”
This case underscores the importance of relying on direct evidence rather than secondhand information when asserting a claim for wrongful termination based on employment discrimination. Courts require evidence such as:
- Documents (emails, employment records, performance reviews)
- Direct testimony from witnesses
- Statements from decision-makers about employment actions
Best Race Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Can You Prove Race Discrimination If Other White Employees Were Treated Better?
- How Can I Prove That I Was Terminated Based on Race Discrimination?
- What Evidence Do I Need To Show Race Discrimination At Work?
What Is Hearsay?
Hearsay is defined under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Simply put, if someone repeats what another person said outside of court, and that statement is being used to prove something in a case, it is generally inadmissible.
However, not all out-of-court statements are hearsay. A key exception applies to statements made by managers, supervisors, or decision-makers about employment decisions. These statements are classified as admissions by a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), making them admissible in court.
Let’s take a look at a few examples:
- Admissible: A supervisor emails HR, saying, “We need to fire her because she complained about race discrimination.” This is an admission by an employer representative and can be used as evidence to prove wrongful termination.
- Inadmissible Hearsay: A coworker tells you and you repeat in Court, “I heard our manager say you were fired because of you are Black.” Since the manager is not the one testifying, this statement is not admissible to prove you were wrongfully fired unless the coworker provides direct testimony or a sworn affidavit.
- Inadmissible: You testify, “My coworker told me that our boss used called me a n*gger and monkey.” This is hearsay and will likely be excluded from a race discrimination lawsuit because the coworker is not directly testifying about the racial slur
- Admissible: Your coworker testifies, “I personally heard our boss use a racial slur.” This is direct testimony and is admissible evidence.
The key difference? Firsthand knowledge versus secondhand repetition. Courts require statements to come directly from the person who witnessed the race or national origin discrimination or retaliation for reporting employment discrimination and will not allow secondhand testimony from someone retelling what they heard.
Best National Origin Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- What Is Direct Evidence Of Employment Discrimination?
- Why Reporting Race Discrimination To HR Is Critical
- What Evidence Do I Need To Prove Hostile Work Environment And Constructive Discharge?
Why Hearsay Is Not Evidence?
Courts reject hearsay because secondhand statements are inherently unreliable. Just like in the game of telephone, where a message becomes distorted as it passes from person to person, information relayed secondhand can be misinterpreted, exaggerated, or even entirely inaccurate. Each retelling introduces the risk of unintentional errors, omissions, or bias, making it impossible for the court to determine the truthfulness of the original statement. Without the ability to question the person who directly witnessed the racial discrimination or harassment, the opposing party loses the fundamental right to challenge the statement’s accuracy, context, and intent. This is why courts require direct evidence—such as firsthand testimony, written documentation, or recorded statements—that can be scrutinized under oath and tested through cross-examination. This process allows the court to assess the credibility of the witness, clarify ambiguities, and ensure that the evidence is reliable and verifiable before making a legal determination.
How Can I Fix A Hearsay Problem To Prove Race Discrimination And Wrongful Termination?
To build a strong workplace discrimination case, employees must ensure they have admissible evidence, not just secondhand verbal accounts or information. One of the most effective ways to do this is by securing written confirmation from coworkers who witnessed discrimination. If a coworker is unwilling or unlikely to testify under oath, it is crucial to obtain a written record—such as a text message or email—confirming what they saw or heard. While these messages alone may not be admissible in court as evidence, they serve as a critical safeguard. If the coworker later agrees to testify (or forced to testify via subpoena) at a deposition or trial, their written statement can be used to refresh their memory and support their credibility. Without such confirmation, an employee may struggle to prove their claim if the coworker later refuses to cooperate or changes their story.
While written messages from coworkers are generally considered hearsay and inadmissible on their own, they become admissible evidence if the coworker later testifies under oath that their statement is an accurate reflection of what happened. A coworker’s testimony at a deposition or trial transforms their prior written account into direct, sworn evidence, which courts can consider when evaluating a discrimination claim.
On the other hand, written statements from managers or decision-makers—such as emails, performance reviews, or text messages discussing employment decisions—are direct and admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. These statements are treated as admissions by a party opponent, meaning they can be used in court even if the manager later tries to deny or explain them away. Because written records from managers are harder to dispute, they are often some of the strongest evidence in workplace discrimination cases.
To strengthen a case, employees should take the following steps: document everything, including incidents, emails, and performance evaluations; secure written confirmation from coworkers if they are unwilling or unlikely to testify; preserve written statements from managers, as they are often the most powerful evidence; and consult an experienced employment lawyer to ensure their evidence meets legal standards and can withstand challenges in court.
Best Wrongful Termination Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- You Don’t Need All Evidence To Start A Discrimination Case
- Can I Prove My Employer Lied About Why I Was Fired?
- How Do You Prove Causation In Wrongful Termination Cases?
What Happens If My Case Relies on Hearsay?
If your case is built on hearsay statements rather than admissible evidence, the court will likely grant summary judgment for your employer. Courts have repeatedly ruled: “A party opposing summary judgment cannot rely on inadmissible evidence absent a showing that admissible evidence will be available at trial.” Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 924 (2d Cir. 1985). In Valerio, the plaintiff relied on hearsay statements, claiming that coworkers told her male officers were treated differently. However, she had no direct, admissible evidence to support her claims. As a result, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment, ruling: “Valerio offers no admissible evidence to support her claim of disparate treatment.”
Hiring the right attorney could have solved many of these problems. The attorney could have used whatever documents were available to conduct deposition and get admissible evidence or subpoena admissible disciplinary records of similarly situated employees to show the disparate race or national origin discrimination.
What’s The Best Way To Pursue A Wrongful Termination Claim Based On Race Discrimination?
If you are facing workplace discrimination, you need a lawyer who understands how to present When facing workplace discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination, choosing the right legal representation is critical. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is one of the largest and most experienced firms dedicated exclusively to employee rights. Unlike general practice firms, we focus solely on employment law, giving us the expertise and resources to take on even the toughest cases. We prepare every case as if it will go to trial, making it clear to employers that we are not afraid to fight in court—often leading to stronger settlements and better outcomes for our clients.
We also believe that every employee deserves top-tier legal representation, regardless of their financial situation. That’s why we offer a free consultation and a no-fee guarantee—you don’t pay unless we win. Our attorneys have successfully taken on major corporations and government entities, securing justice for employees who have been mistreated. If you are facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today. Let us fight for your rights.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This race and national origin blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice regarding your wrongful termination situation. Reading this employment discrimination blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you suspect retaliation or wrongful termination, consult a qualified employment lawyer immediately. Each case where an employee is wrongfully fired is unique, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This blog is an advertisement for legal services provided by Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm.