Jorgensen

facts showing Hernandez’s ascent was due to her competence, not discrimination. The University moved for summary judgment, offering evidence of legitimate justifications for its decisions. Jorgensen opposed the motion with declarations from Jorgensen and other older women who had worked under Ujlaki. The University lodged objections to Jorgensen’s supporting declarations, including one from Carolyn Bauer, a former School employee. The court sustained objections to part of Bauer’s declaration. Bauer declared that, while working at the School, one Belinda Brunelle asked Bauer about an open position there— a position different from anything Jorgensen sought. Bauer mentioned Brunelle’s interest to Hernandez, who immediately responded she “wanted someone younger” for the position. The University objected to Bauer’s evidence about Hernandez’s “someone younger” remark. Its four objections were relevance, conjecture, speculation, and hearsay. These four objections were wide of the mark.

3 First, the relevance objection was incorrect under the Reid decision, which extensively analyzed the federal doctrine of stray remarks: “ ‘statements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by…