of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed.R.Evid. 801(c)(2). Hearsay evidence is not admissible at trial unless it falls under an exception. See Fed.R.Evid. 802. The report is not hearsay because the Board offered it to establish the effect it had on Superintendent Rounds’ state of mind when he made the decision to terminate Zamora. In other words, the report was not offered to prove that Zamora did in fact sexually harass some employees or violate other policies; instead, the report was offered to demonstrate that Superintendent Rounds believed there were legitimate reasons for his decision to terminate Zamora’s contract. Because the report is not hearsay, it was properly considered by the district court. See Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 3 F.3d 1419, 1434 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). We thus turn to pretext. “To show that the
holding that statements offered to establish defendants state of mind in making an employment decision and  not offered for the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay holding that some of the testimony is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and there fore is not hearsay holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony holding that certain outofcourt statements offered to explain the course of police conduct may be admissible because they are not offered for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to show the information upon which the police acted the trial court must balance the prosecutions need for the statements against any prejudice arising therefrom holding that a text message constituted hearsay insofar as it was offered to prove the truth of the statement asserted