WPC> :FKձܘ8.-/φ+~,5}SJ847Br%Qgҧ"eCTTe~`g[(8^곊Q [?5M/9>B 7a6-Ck=%(ʭ $* \B5 \c;xh<HOCo2y#A*L~xK`Vt{IJчlQaϿ`  /V/ `yqtS˙0aȄl-N/jb_fmBBda b#\ % 0# 0 UN 0 0 z 4 0 0 0 0N 0Ny 0{ 0QE- 0/ 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0 0~ 0V 0+ 0 0! 0" 0a# 0'$ 0n$U>X% 0%^ <&wH&4L&b`&h&w& my&4& 0 D'U'N(V(V(+;.14444i5\R7R7R7R7R7R79999999999999 0 9999 B:: 0: D3b; D-; 0K;; AS <`< 0&= 0D= A>HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS042G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default ParaXXXXXX\  `&Times New Roman0;;.header   !XXX   !XXXԥ+ HE*؀- -3|xU * RN$      2  49 4  _Anearliermotionforsummaryjudgmentfiledby)9  49Brencorwasstrickenbythetrialcourtonatechnicality.#49  )9#(#$  0  (I Z6Times New Roman Regular  RN$      6  49 4  _T.C.A.850103)9  49(a)providesasfollows:  8  8`   Thereshallbenodiscriminationinthehiring,firingandothertermsandconditions 8 ofemploymentofthestateofTennesseeoranydepartment,agency,institutionor L politicalsubdivisionofthestate,orofanyprivateemployer,againstanyapplicant  foremploymentbasedsolelyuponanyphysical,mentalorvisualhandicapofthe  applicant,unlesssuchhandicaptosomedegreepreventstheapplicantfrom H  performingthedutiesrequiredbytheemploymentsoughtorimpairsthe  \ performanceoftheworkinvolved....#49  )9#  RN$      3  49 4  _Thesecondpageofthisjobdescription,onwhichpagetheliftandcarryrequirementsarefound,was  inadvertentlyomittedfromtheattachment;atalatertime,priortothefinalresolutionofthiscasebelow,thedefendant t filedbothpagesofthejobdescription.Thefailuretofilethecompletedocumentoriginallyisthebasisforanadditional 8 issueby_Perlberg_.Inviewofourresolutionofthecase,wedonotfinditnecessarytoaddressthisissue. 1 RN$      1  49 4  _Perlbergalsoallegedclaimsunderthetheoriesofbreachofcontractandretaliatorydischarge.)9  49Onappeal,  Perlbergmakesnoargumentsrelatingtothedismissalofhisbreachofcontractclaim,and,atoralargument,hiscounsel t indicatedthathewasnotappealingthedismissalofhisretaliatorydischargeclaim.Hence,theonlyclaimatissueon 8 thisappealrelatestotheallegationthatBrencor violatedtheTENNESSEEHUMANRIGHTSACTbynotreasonably L accommodatinghiminajobofwhichhewascapableinhisinjuredcondition.#49  )9#  RN$      5  49 4  _T.C.A.421401provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  8`   (a)Itisadiscriminatorypracticeforanemployerto:8` x` x 8  8`   (1)Failorrefusetohireordischargeanypersonorotherwisetodiscriminate  againstanindividualwithrespecttocompensation,terms,conditionsorprivileges  ofemploymentbecauseofsuchindividualsrace,creed,color,religion,sex,ageor H  nationalorigin.... RN$      4  49 4  _TheTHRAiscodifiedatT.C.A.421101etseq.  RN$      7  49 4  _EventhoughtheSupremeCourtreleaseditsopinionin Barnes onMay30,2000,thatopinionhasnotyetbeen  reportedinanadvancesheetoraboundvolumeoftheSouthwesternReporter.Theopinionwasnotdesignatedbythe v SupremeCourtas NotForPublication.SeeSup.Ct.R.4(A)(2). R RN$      8  49 4  _The_THA_,in_T.C.A._Ԁ850103(b)(2),clearlystatesthataviolationofitstermsbringsintoplay allrights  providedinthe_THRA_.Seealso Barnes ,2000WL688864at*4( The_THA_Ԁembodiesthedefinitionsandremedies t providedbytheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.). (|G2N$ !.8Kd d 8         0  8 d(|3M$ !.8Kd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8Kd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Td d8     _  4^482XXdd 8  @ 4N4^INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#4^4N #Ԉ &   May8,2001Session L 4XX4^ #4^X4X#ELLISPERLBERGv.BRENCORASSETMANAGEMENT,INC.4XX4^  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @@No.981133W.FrankBrown,III,Chancellor  6 FILEDJULY30,2001    @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002272COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #4^X4Xr#4XX4^)XXX4XThisisahandicapdiscriminationcase.Theplaintiff,EllisPerlberg,injuredhisbackwhileworking x  forthedefendant,BrencorAssetManagement,Inc.( Brencor).Hereturnedtoworkseveral d monthslater.Hewasterminatedonthedayofhisreturn.BrencorinformedPerlbergthathewas P beingterminatedbecausehisphysicianhadinformedthecompanyofPerlbergspermanent < restrictions,whichrestrictions,accordingtothecompany,wereincompatiblewithPerlbergsjob (x requirements.Perlbergfiledsuit,alleging,interalia,thatBrencor violatedtheTENNESSEE d HUMANRIGHTSACT[( THRA)]bynotreasonablyaccommodatinghiminajobofwhichhe P wascapableinhisinjuredcondition.AfterthetrialcourtgrantedBrencorsummaryjudgment, < Perlbergfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgment,and,forthefirsttimeidentifiedT.C.A.8 ( 50103(1993),theTennesseeHandicapAct( THA),asthestatuteunderwhichhewaspursuing  hisTHRAclaim.ThetrialcourtdeniedPerlbergsmotiontoalteroramend,andhenowappeals.#4XXX)X##4^X4X#4XX4^Ԁ  Wereverse.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt t Reversed;CaseRemanded  `   #4^4XJ #4XX.4^CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franksand 8!  D.MichaelSwiney,JJ.,joined. $"t! JohnM.Wolfe,Jr.,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,EllisPerlberg. #L# AngelaM.Cirina,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,BrencorAssetManagement,Inc. %$!% @  OPINION #4^X4Xo #4XX4^ '"' I.Background )$)     Perlberg#4^X4XZ #4XX4^)XXX4XcommencedhisemploymentasamaintenancetechnicianwithBrencoron \+&+  December13,1996.HeinjuredhisbackwhileinthecourseandscopeofthatemploymentonApril H,', 17,1997.OnApril23,1997,Perlbergceasedworkingandbeganseveralmonthsoftreatmentunder  thecareofhisphysician.     WhenPerlbergreturnedtoworkonNovember3,1997,Brencorterminatedhisemployment. t BrencorinformedPerlbergbyletterthatithadreceivedaletterfromPerlbergsphysicianoutlining ` permanentworkrestrictionsthatwereincompatiblewiththejobrequirementsofamaintenance L  technician. 8    OnNovember3,1998,Perlbergfiledtheinstantaction,statinghisclaim8 3#  1      #4XXX)X#)XXX4X#)^X)X #)XX)^Ԁasfollows:  ` 8  8`   Defendant...violatedtheTENNESSEEHUMANRIGHTSACTby  8  notreasonablyaccommodatinghiminajobofwhichhewascapable $  inhisinjuredcondition. ` x` x BrencorfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonApril24,2000.2d 3#  2      ׀Themotionwassupportedby   theaffidavitofMarthaHopkins,BrencorsDistrictManager.Inheraffidavit,Hopkinsstated,inter   alia,thatPerlbergsphysician,onOctober3,1997,indicatedthatPerlbergcouldreturntowork,but p couldnot,amongotherthings,liftmorethan35poundsfrequentlyorcarrymorethan60pounds. \ SheattachedtoheraffidavitadescriptionofPerlbergsjobasamaintenancetechnician.The H attachmentreflectsthatamaintenancetechnicianisrequiredtoliftandcarry50100pounds 4 frequently.7 3#  3        p   Afterahearingonthemotion,thetrialcourtgrantedBrencorsmotionforsummary H judgment.WithrespecttoPerlbergsTHRA:  3#  4      #)^X)X]#)XX)^#4XXX)X#)XXX4XԀclaim,thecourtnotedthatPerlbergdidnotciteany  4 statuteasrequiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.8.05.ThecourtthenreferredtoT.C.A.421401,9 3#  5      ׀which  dealswithemploymentrelateddiscriminationundertheTHRA.Thecourtfoundthatthestatute  appliedonlytodiscriminationbaseduponanindividualsrace,creed,color,religion,sex,ageor  nationalorigin,anddidnotapplytoPerlbergshandicapdiscriminationclaim.Thecourtalsostated t that [n]oprovisionisfoundintheTHRAwhichrequires[Brencor]toreasonablyaccommodate ` [Perlberg]inajobhecouldperforminhisdisabledcondition. L    SubsequenttothecourtsmemorandumopinionandordergrantingBrencorsummary $ t judgment,PerlbergfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.59.  ` Inhismotion,Perlberg,forthefirsttime,citedT.C.A.850103(1993),whichrelatesto  L  discriminationbaseduponahandicap.5 3#  6        8    Initssecondmemorandumopinionandorder,thetrialcourtagainfoundinfavorofBrencor.   ThecourtfocusedonthelanguageofT.C.A.850103,whichstatesthat [t]hereshallbeno   discrimination8solelyuponanyphysical,mentalorvisualhandicap8unlesssuchhandicaptosome   degreepreventstheapplicantfromperformingthedutiesrequiredbytheemploymentsoughtor   impairstheperformanceoftheworkinvolved.Thecourt,relyingupontheitalicizedlanguage, p foundthatBrencordidnotviolatethestatutebyterminatingPerlbergsemploymentbecause \ Perlbergdidnotmeetthephysicalqualificationsfortheposition.Insoholding,thetrialcourtrelied H upontheaforementionedaffidavitofMs.Hopkins,BrencorsDistrictManager,whichpurportsto 4 establishthatPerlbergsphysicalproblems prevents[him]fromperformingthedutiesrequiredby  p theemploymentsoughtorimpairstheperformanceoftheworkinvolved. Id .  \   Perlbergappeals,assertingseveralerrors,oneofwhichisthatthetrialcourterredingranting 4 Brencorsummaryjudgmentbecause,sotheargumentgoes,Brencorfailedtorebutthecaseof   handicapdiscriminationallegedbyPerlberg.Becausewefindthisissuetobedispositive,wedonot   addresstheappellantsotherarguments.    II.GeneralPrinciplesofSummaryJudgment  U$  Indecidingwhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,courtsaretodetermine if  thepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththe t affidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingparty ` isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Courts musttakethestrongest L  legitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonableinferencesin 8  favorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d208,21011 $ t (Tenn.1993).Amovantmaynotrelyoninadmissibleevidence. Id .at215.  `   Thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofdemonstratingthatthereisno  8  genuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. Id .at215. $  Generally,adefendantseekingsummaryjudgmentmaymeetthisburdeninoneoftwoways:(1)by   affirmativelynegatinganessentialelementoftheplaintiffscase,or(2)byconclusivelyestablishing   anaffirmativedefense. Id .at215n.5.Oncethemovingpartysatisfiesitsburdenofshowingthat   thereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact,theburdenthenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoshowthat   thereisagenuineissueofmaterialfactrequiringsubmissiontothetrieroffact. Id .at215. p   III.Discussion H +  PerlbergarguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingBrencorsummaryjudgmentbecause,so  p theargumentgoes,Brencorfailedtorebutanelementofhishandicapdiscriminationcase.  \   TheTennesseeHumanRightsAct( THRA)iscodifiedatT.C.A.421101etseq.The 4 THRAonitsfaceprotectsemployeesfromadverseemploymentdecisionsbaseduponanemployees    race,creed,color,religion,sex,ageornationalorigin8.T.C.A.421401(1998).The   employmentrelatedpartoftheTHRAdoesnotexpresslyapplytoclaimsofdiscriminationbased  uponadisability.Instead,anemployeeisprotectedfromanadverseemploymentdecisionbased  uponadisabilityundertheTennesseeHandicapAct( THA),T.C.A.850103(1993),which  provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: l 8  8`   (a)Thereshallbenodiscriminationinthehiring,firingandother D! termsandconditionsofemploymentofthestateofTennesseeorany 0"  department,agency,institutionorpoliticalsubdivisionofthestate,or #l! ofanyprivateemployer,againstanyapplicantforemploymentbased $X" solelyuponanyphysical,mentalorvisualhandicapoftheapplicant, $D # unlesssuchhandicaptosomedegreepreventstheapplicantfrom %0!$ performingthedutiesrequiredbytheemploymentsoughtorimpairs &"% theperformanceoftheworkinvolved....'#&` x` x TheTHAworksinconjunctionwiththeTHRAtograntanindividualacivilcauseofactionfor )$( wrongfuldiscriminationbaseduponahandicap.SeeT.C.A.850103(b)(1)(2);T.C.A.421 |*%) 311(1998). h+&* Ї  TheSupremeCourtrecentlyoutlinedtheappropriateframeworkforanalyzingan  employmentrelatedhandicapdiscriminationclaimundertheTHAandtheTHRAin Barnesv.  GoodyearTireandRubberCompany ,2000WL688864(Tenn.,filedMay30,2000).> 3#  7      ׀The  frameworkisasfollows: t 8  8`   First,aclaimantmustestablishthatheorsheisaqualifiedindividual L  withadisability.Next,theclaimantmustshowthatheorshecan 8  performtheessentialfunctionsofthejobwithorwithoutreasonable $ t accommodation.Finally,theclaimantmustshowthatheorshewas  ` subjectedtoanadverseemploymentactiononthebasisofaprotected  L  disability.Theclaimantcanestablishcausationundereitheradirect  8  evidencemethodoranindirectevidencemethod.Ashowingof $  directevidenceofintentionaldiscriminationentitlestheclaimantto   judgmentunlesstheemployershowsthatanimpermissiblemotive   didnotplayaroleintheemploymentdecision.Iftheclaimantis   unabletoprofferdirectevidenceofdiscrimination,theclaimantcan   relyoncircumstantialevidenceundertheindirectevidencemethod. p WeadopttheBurdineburdenshiftinganalysistoanalyzeindirect \ evidencecases.H` x` x  Barnes ,at*8.  p   Asathresholdmatter,BrencorcomplainsthatweshouldnotconsiderPerlbergshandicap H discriminationclaimbecause,sotheargumentgoes,itwasnotproperlyraiseduntilafterthetrial 4 courtgrantedBrencorsummaryjudgment.Whilethedraftmanshipofthecomplaintleavesmuch   tobedesired,wecannot,inthissummaryjudgmentanalysis,findthatitissodeficientastowarrant   afindingthatsuchaclaimwasnotraisedinthecomplaint.    Thediscriminationclaimisstatedinthecomplaintasfollows:  8  8`   Defendant8violatedtheTENNESSEEHUMANRIGHTSACTby X  notreasonablyaccommodating[Perlberg]inajobofwhichhewas D! capableinhisinjuredcondition.0" ` x` x PerlbergdidnotspecificallyidentifytheTHA,bynameorbystatutenumber,untilhefiledhisTenn. $X" R.Civ.P.59motiontoalteroramendthesummaryjudgmentgrantedtoBrencor.Brencorargues $D # thatPerlbergscomplaintfailstocomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.8.05. %0!$   Tenn.R.Civ.P.8.05provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: '#& Ї8  8`   Everypleadingstatingaclaimordefenserelyingupontheviolation  ofastatuteshall,inaseparatecountorparagraph,eitherspecifically  refertothestatuteorstateallofthefactsnecessarytoconstitutesuch  breachsothattheotherpartycanbedulyapprisedofthestatutory t violationcharged.`` x` x   WeareoftheopinionthatPerlbergscomplaintstatessufficientfactstoappriseBrencorof 8  aclaimofemploymentrelatedhandicapdiscrimination.WenotefirstthatBrencor,uponreceiving $ t thecomplaint,didnotfileamotionforamoredefinitestatement.Moreover,theonlywayto  ` interpretthatportionofthecomplaintspecificallyallegingthatBrencorviolatedtheTHRAbyfailing  L  toreasonablyaccommodatePerlbergistoreadtheTHRAinconjunctionwiththeTHA.Thisis  8  becausetheconceptof reasonableaccommodationisnotintheTHRAperse,excepttotheextent $  thattheTHRArelatestoaclaimofhousingdiscrimination,andthisisobviouslynotaclaimof   housingdiscrimination.However,aclaimregardingreasonableaccommodationinemploymentdoes   makesenseinthecontextofaTHAclaim.See#4XXX)X##4^X4XJ#4XX4^T.C.A.#4^X4XE#)^4^)XX)^Ԁ850103(b)(1)(2).? 3#  8      ׀Furthermore,theonly   reasonableinterpretationofPerlbergscomplaintisthatheisassertingaclaimofemployment   relateddiscriminationwithrespecttohisphysicalcondition.Wethereforefindandholdthatthe p complaintadequatelyallegesaclaimofhandicapdiscriminationunderT.C.A.850103. \ *  ! !X!)XXX)X  ?( 4 <DL!?*[H  *[HI݌̌   XX)XXX)X    WenowaddressPerlbergsargumentthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgment 4 toBrencorbecause,accordingtotheargument,Brencorfailedtopresent,bywayofaffidavitsor  p discoverymaterial,factstorebutanessentialelementofhisclaim.Morespecifically,andasit  \ relatestothedefensivepositiontakenbyBrencor,PerlbergarguesthatBrencor,asthesummary H judgmentmovant,failedtoshowthatPerlbergsallegedhandicap tosomedegreeprevents[him] 4 fromperformingthedutiesrequiredbytheemploymentsoughtorimpairstheperformanceofthe   workinvolved.T.C.A.850103(a).     Brencordisagrees.ItreliesuponthatportionofHopkinsaffidavitstatingthatPerlbergs  physicianhadinformedBrencorthatPerlbergspermanentrestrictionspreventedhimfromlifting  morethan35poundsfrequentlyandcarryingmorethan60pounds.PerlbergrespondsthatHopkins l hadnopersonalknowledgeoftherestrictions,thatthephysiciansallegedstatementishearsay,and, X  consequently,thatthesubjectassertionintheaffidavitisinadmissibleandcannotbeutilizedon D! summaryjudgment. 0"    BrencorechoesthetrialcourtsfindingsontheadmissibilityofthisportionofHopkins $X" affidavit.Thetrialcourtstatedthatthedoctorsrestrictionswerebusinessrecordsandthattheywere $D #  inthenatureofastatementagainstthePlaintiffsinterestbyhisagent. %0!$   &"%   First,wedonotbelievethatthebusinessrecordexceptiontothehearsayruleapplies.Tenn.   R.Evid.803(6)provides,inpertinentpart,thatthefollowingisadmissiblehearsay:  8  8`   Amemorandum,report,record,ordatacompilationinanyformof t acts,events,conditions,opinions,ordiagnosesmadeatornearthe ` timebyorfrominformationtransmittedbyapersonwithknowledge L  andabusinessdutytorecordortransmitifkeptinthecourseofa 8  regularlyconductedbusinessactivityandifitwastheregularpractice $ t ofthatbusinessactivitytomakethememorandum,report,record,or  ` datacompilation,allasshownbythetestimonyofthecustodianor  L  otherqualifiedwitness,unlessthesourceofinformationorthe  8  methodorcircumstancesofpreparationindicatelackof $  trustworthiness. ` x` x eInheraffidavit,Hopkinsstates,inpertinentpart,asfollows:     8 ` OnOctober3,1997,Mr.Perlburgsphysicianindicatedthatemployee \ couldreturntoworkwithpermanentrestrictionsconsistingofno H liftinggreaterthan35lbs.frequently,nocarryinggreaterthan60lbs., 4 avoidrepetitivestairclimbing,andtochangepositionseveryhour. p` `  TheaffidavitincludesasanattachmentaletterfromHopkinstoPerlbergstatingagainthatBrencor H  [has]receivedthedoctorsletterindicatingpermanentrestrictions8.Thisisthetotalityofthe 4 evidencerelatingtoPerlbergsallegedrestrictions;thedoctorsletterisnotintherecord.#4XXX)X*F#)XXX4X#)^X)XIF#)XX)^ԀHence,   thereisno memorandum,report,record,ordatacompilationfromthedoctor.Obviously,sucha   documentmustexisttoimplicatetheprovisionsofRule803(6).    Second,Tenn.R.Evid.803(1.2)recognizesthefollowinghearsayexception:  8  8` !! Astatementofferedagainstapartythatis(A)thepartysown X  statementineitheranindividualorarepresentativecapacity,or(B)a D! statementinwhichthepartyhasmanifestedanadoptionorbeliefinits 0"  truth,or(C)astatementbyapersonauthorizedbythepartytomake #l! astatementconcerningthesubject,or(D)astatementbyanagentor $X" servantconcerningamatterwithinthescopeoftheagencyor $D # employmentmadeduringtheexistenceoftherelationshipunder %0!$ circumstancesqualifyingthestatementasoneagainstthedeclarants &"% interestregardlessofdeclarantsavailability8.'#&` `  WedonotbelievethatHopkinsassertionthatPerlbergsphysicianinformedherofPerlbergs )$(  permanentrestrictionsqualifiesasanadmissionbyapartyopponent.Thereisnoindicationinthe |*%) recordthatPerlberginstructedthedoctortomakesuchastatementonhisbehalforthatthedoctor  wasotherwiseactingasPerlbergsagentwhenhemadethestatement.     Insum,weareoftheopinionthattheletterfromPerlbergsphysicianportionofHopkins t affidavitishearsayandisnotadmissibleunderanyexceptiontothehearsayrule.Clearly,Hopkins ` wouldnotbeallowedtoestablishtheexistenceofPerlbergsallegedpermanentrestrictionsby L  testifyingattrialthatthephysicianinformedherofsuchrestrictions.Suchtestimonywouldbe 8  inadmissiblehearsay.Hence,itcannotbeconsideredonsummaryjudgment. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat $ t 215.  `   BrencorarguesthatHopkinsstatementregardingtherestrictionsisnothearsaybecause,so  8  theargumentgoes,Brencorisnotseekingtoestablishtheexistenceoftherestrictionsbutratherthat $  itsdecisiontoterminatePerlbergwasmotivatedbyitsbeliefthatPerlbergwaslimitedbysuch   restrictions.Wedisagreewiththisanalysis.Astothehandicapdiscriminationclaim!theonlyclaim   atissueonthisappeal!theexistenceoftherestrictionsisessentialtoBrencorssummaryjudgment   effort;withoutthem,BrencorcannotestablishitsdefensiveposturethatPerlbergsallegedhandicap    tosomedegreeprevents[him]fromperformingthedutiesrequiredbytheemploymentsoughtor p impairstheperformanceoftheworkinvolved.T.C.A.850103(a). \   Insummary,weholdthatPerlbergscomplaintallegesacauseofactionforemployment 4 relatedhandicapdiscriminationundertheTHAandtheTHRA.WefurtherfindandholdthatBrencor  p hasfailedtocarryitsburdenonsummaryjudgmentofshowingthatPerlbergsallegeddisability  \ somehowhinderedhimfromperformingtherequirementsofhisjob.Accordingly,wefindthatthe H trialcourterredingrantingBrencorsummaryjudgmentontheclaimofemploymentrelatedhandicap 4 discrimination.     IV.Conclusion  Fh  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtastotheappellantscauseofactionforemploymentrelated  handicapdiscriminationundertheTHAandtheTHRAisreversed.Thecaseisremandedforfurther l proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee,BrencorAsset X  Management. D! #4XXX)XX##4^X4XX#4XX4^   `     h     ___________________________________ %0!$    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE