Can ''Incoherent Testimony'' Be Considered As Inadmissible Hearsay ?
In Valley Mould & Iron Co. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 133 Ill. App. 3d 273, 478 N.E.2d 449, 88 Ill. Dec. 134 (1985), the administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the supervisor's testimony as "inadmissible hearsay" because it was "incoherent" and thus insufficient to satisfy the employer's burden to clearly state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge. (133 Ill. App. 3d at 285, 478 N.E.2d at 456).
In that case, the supervisor contradicted himself at the hearing, first saying that he discharged the plaintiff after talking to the foreman, then admitting that he did not talk to the foreman until after the discharge and, subsequently, coming up with a list of other reasons to support the discharge.
This court upheld the ALJ's determination that the supervisor failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge, finding that the supervisor had simply "sought credible testimony to establish the decision maker's basis for recommending the discharge," but had failed to obtain it, and the resulting exclusion of the supervisor's testimony had not operated to place an improper burden on the employer. Valley Mould, 133 Ill. App. 3d at 285, 478 N.E.2d at 456.