incompetent’ or ‘knowingly violating the law’ when they terminated him, [his] claims ... must be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity.” Appellants’ Br. at 42. As we have already suggested, the argument is misplaced. Wright has not alleged that the Appellants’ reliance on the audit report was unreasonable. Quite to the contrary, he alleges that the Appellants’ claimed reliance on the report is merely a pretext. The Appellants terminated him, Wright alleges, in retaliation for speaking out against the County’s allegedly raciaby discriminatory employment practices. There is no question that such racially-based retaliation would violate a right that was clearly established at the time Wright was terminated. See, e.g., Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F.2d 903, 907 (3d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 970, 101 S.Ct. 2045,
holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981 holding that an affidavit  consisting entirely of inadmissible hearsay is not sufficient to survive summary judgment holding that the district court erred in ruling that a plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to survive summary judgment on its discrimination claim where the district court had simply discounted plaintiffs admissible evidence as less probative than defendants holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment holding that appellant had submitted sufficient evidence of racebased retaliation to survive summary judgment on his  1981 claim