Fact and Hearsay in the Case

Hearsay is a statement made in a court with an aim of proving a matter (Friedman, 2002). Thus, hearsay shows evidence on an issue from other sources apart from a witness. For instance, witness X may claim that person Y informed him/her that person A killed somebody. Hearsay is difficult to understand, as the concept is largely confusing.

This is because even when a statement meets the hearsay requirements, issues of admissibility may compound the use of such statements. Some exceptions exist regarding the cases when hearsay could be admissible (Friedman, 2005). For hearsay to be admissible, the declarant must be unavailable or unable to testify. Moreover, hearsay must meet the following conditions. The statement must guarantee trustworthiness. Similarly, the statement must be of an assistive nature towards proving a material fact. The evidence should be more probative in comparison to any other obtainable evidence. The evidence should also promote the cause of justice (Friedman, 2005).

Legal facts are a form of information that is useful as a basis of arguments in cases (Garner, 1999). Evidence adduced regarding an issue is intended to prove facts that support an argument (Spangler, 2003). Evidence is what supports that facts are proper. Thus, facts assist judges to arrive at a solution. Facts are, hence, useful in proving matters that are being contested.

Some facts can be proven using circumstantial evidence, while others are proven with oral evidence (Spangler, 2003). Circumstantial evidence may include eyewitness accounts or other evidence that reflect the scenario being investigated. The use of fingerprints is perhaps one of the best examples of circumstantial evidence.

Based on the case under review, Delores Mendoza makes sweeping allegations against the county. The allegation that she is being discriminated for being Hispanic and female is based on hearsay. This is supported by Delores Mendoza’s remark that, “a close friend of mine once overheard Mr. Flood complaining to another manager about “all those foolish women” and “incompetent minorities” who were trying to infiltrate the ranks of management. In the statement by Mr. Floods, hearsay is clear based on allegations that, “it was felt that some supervisors had overrated their people to help them keep up with the rising cost of living”.

However, Delores Mendoza has raised damning facts about her workplace. For instance, she says that, “I have also had two white males promoted around me during my twelve years with Dade County”. This is factual, although Delores Mendoza does not show facts that those who were promoted ahead of her were less qualified. This is because Delores Mendoza was given an opportunity to serve in the contested capacity on a temporary basis.

Legal and Ethical Issues

The case borders on employee welfare. Delores Mendoza feels to have been sidelined at the workplace despite doing her best. Ethical and legal issues in the case gravitate around fairness, justice, and equity. An aspect of competency is also discernable. In practice, each worker has a right to receive fair treatment from the employers, superior and junior colleagues. Delores Mendoza heavily contests the issue of equality in treatment and access to opportunities. However, the employer fights back and claims that the allegations by Delores Mendoza are unfounded and it appears that they are not based on facts.

According to the employer, a fair process that entailed using performance appraisals was employed to decide promotions at the workplace. However, this is questionable since earlier records indicated that Delores Mendoza was among the best performers. However, Mr. Floods alleges that supervisors who wanted to help their juniors to overcome hard economic times exaggerated the performance appraisals. Regardless of the motif that the supervisors had, it is evident that, at one time, records showed that Delores Mendoza was performing excellently. Thus, she felt she was entitled to a promotion when her senior proceeded to retirement. It is unethical to falsify performance appraisals for whatever purposes. However, since Mr. Floods claims that the most recent performance appraisals were used in determining the promotion, Delores Mendoza has no grounds to mount a claim against the management.

There is a reason to believe that Mendoza was not being victimized based on the fact that the management used regular appraisals in assessing the performance of the workers. The management has also cited several negative aspects about Mendoza. Since organizations have goals that they pursue, it was necessary to pick a person that would serve the interests of the organization in the most appropriate manner.

Resolving the Immediate Situation

Since the scenario has already unfolded, it is crucial that the disputing parties should come together and resolve the impasse. On the part of Delores Mendoza, she needs to come down to terms that she has not been given the promotion she anticipated. Thus, she needs to see her peers and share her frustrations. Using this approach would allow her to come to terms. Delores Mendoza should also present her grievances to the management without brewing another dispute. However, the biggest responsibility lies with the management. The management should use this dispute to develop clear policies on promotions and demotions. In this regard, the Human Resource office should prepare a list detailing qualifications that employees are required to satisfy before being considered for promotion. In addition, the human resource office should consider outsourcing recruitment services whenever it predicts that a conflict could emerge. Outsourcing such services could be expensive; however, such a move would help the organization to deal with promotion conflicts.