Following Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, this decision holds that the trial court erred in excluding “stray remarks” evidence in this employment discrimination case on the basis of age.  The stray remark, by an assistant dean, was that she wanted someone younger (than the applicant, not plaintiff) for a position different than any plaintiff held or applied for.  The remark was relevant since it showed age bias by an assistant dean who (as shown by other evidence) exercised considerable influence over the dean, who made hiring and firing decisions.  A third party’s report of the assistant dean’s remark was not hearsay or, if hearsay, fit within the state of mind exception.  There was no speculation or conjecture involved, as the witness supposedly quoted the assistant dean’s exact words. When the stray remark was added to plaintiff’s other evidence, there was enough to raise a triable issue of fact in the third step of the McDonnell-Douglas test so that summary judgment should have been denied.