citations and quotations omitted). Thus, the Court does not view evidence of racial discrimination in hiring practices at Budco as irrelevant to Wilson’s claim that he was discriminated against by being transferred back to DCXOM and by not being hired for a job ultimately given to Page. 5. Many of the black temps within the company quit because they were discouraged with Budco’s hiring practices. Defendants assert that the Court should strike paragraph 5 for lack of personal knowledge. In his supplemental affidavit, Wilson explained that he knew this information because he was told by the employees why they were quitting. Wilson lacks personal knowledge of information that he received from these employees. See Sperle v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 483, 495-96 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 526 n. 13
holding that fourth amendment did not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to government authorities holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that statements even when made to a third party which are appropriately determined to be threatening can constitute obstruction of justice holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule holding that plaintiffaffiant did not have personal knowledge of statements made to him by a third party