slurs. Goshay and Martin were credible witnesses. The Court credits Goshay’s testimony because it is highly unlikely that Goshay used such derogatory language about members of his own race. Goshay also asked plaintiff Ford and other black employees to take Mead’s supervisory training program. Ford refused this opportunity. For all of these reasons, the Court believes Mr. Goshay on this evidentiary issue instead of the testimony presented by plaintiffs. 29. In any event, the prior use of the hand signals and Goshay’s alleged statements do not create an inference of discrimination because plaintiffs failed to show that any such signals and remarks played any part in the defendant’s promotional process. See Barber v. International Bhd. of Boilermakers, 778 F.2d 750, 761 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The “probative value of [the hand signal and
holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made holding that statement by employer that plaintiff was a smart ass nigger did not carry plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof when statement was unrelated to the referral practice at issue holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent