proffered for the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). P.I. Lawrence’s Investigation Report is not a sworn statement and, as such, does not qualify as admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (requiring sworn statements in opposing summary judgment). Significantly, Plaintiff fails to point to any exception to the hearsay rule available under the Federal Rules of Evidence to support the admissibility of the Travis Affidavit or the P.I. Lawrence Investigation Report Plaintiff filed in opposition to summary judgment. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs proffered evidence could be admitted to establish circumstantial evidence that Defendants were providing negative employment references to prospective employers considering hiring Plaintiff, Jute, supra, at 179 (<HOLDING>), Plaintiff still fails to establish the
holding that a prima facie case plus disbelief of employers asserted justification for employment action is not necessarily sufficient to establish a violation and that in such cases summary judgment is appropriate unless the plaintiff presents adequate evidence that the employer unlawfully discriminated holding circumstantial evidence that defendant former employer was providing negative employment reference to plaintiffs prospective employers was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the causation element of prima facie case holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs statistical evidence which lacked specific analytical foundation and thus failed to show that employer maintained discriminatory intent was insufficient to establish prima facie case or pretext holding that a petitioner is certainly permitted to use evidence eliminating other potential causes to help carry the burden on causation and may find it necessary to do so when the other evidence on causation is insufficient to make out a prima facie case and in such instances clearly the special master must evaluate what evidence a claimant presents as part of determining whether the claimant makes a prima facie case holding reliance on statistical evidence of inexorable zero was sufficient to establish prima facie case notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to reference appropriate workpool