that the SSA makes an exception to the normal merit system selection practice for individuals who are on an “outstanding scholar” list. Roseman testified that he, and others with hiring capacity, were told that if they were going to use the outstanding scholar program, it could only be used to hire black candidates. On one occasion, Roseman wanted to hire a white candidate from the list, and was told that he could not select her; he further testified that a fellow field director was also told he could not select a white male he had wanted to hire. See Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 212 n. 5 (3d Cir.2001) (allowing the court to consider sworn testimony as the equivalent of an affidavit). See also id. (citing Williams v. Borough of West Chester Pa., 891 F.2d 458 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we hold that
holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial holding that an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence based on judicial factfinding does not evade the requirements of the fifth and sixth amendments and reaffirming mcmillan v pennsylvania 477 us 79 106 sct 2411 91 led2d 67 1986 holding on the authority of celotex v catrett 477 us 317 106 sct 2548 91 led2d 265 1986 that hearsay evidence produced in an affidavit opposing summary judgment may be considered if the outofcourt declarant could later present that evidence through direct testimony ie in a form that would be admissible at trial 