court held that statements made by employees suggesting that plaintiff was fired because of his age were outside the scope of 802(d)(2)(D) because the employees were not involved in the decision to fire plaintiff. Defendants’ reading of Rule 802(d)(2)(D) is too narrow. Whether something is within an employee’s scope of employment extends beyond matters involving direct decisionmakers. Carter v. Univ. of Toledo, 349 F.3d 269, 275 (6th Cir.2003). As Wilson argues, McComb’s comments about Page fall squarely within the scope of her employment because she was a supervisor, who gave evaluations of those working under her, including Page. Grizzell v. City of Columbus Div. of Police, 461 F.3d 711, 722 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Barner v. Pilkington N. Am. Inc., 399 F.3d 745, 750 (6th Cir.2005)) (<HOLDING>). Further, although comments made by
holding that employee charged with managing the promotional process was within his authority when he spoke on the matter of promotions holding that the public employee plaintiff was charged with knowledge of the statutory limitation on the governors authority to bind the state to pay the employee a fixed annual salary holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred 