Judge says: Let them both in!
In a N.J. employment discrimination case, Judge William Walls, faced with dueling stats experts found both of the cases to be admissible.
Background and case from www.dauberttracker.com
The plaintiffs were former and current employees of the defendants Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees against Johnson & Johnson. The case was filed pursuant to Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. ยค 10:5-1.
The expert statistical report, prepared by Dr. Janice Madden and Dr. Alexander Vekker ("Madden Report"), was relied upon by the plaintiff to support their claim of commonality. Defendant filed a motion to strike the Madden Report arguing that (1) the Madden Report was irrelevant to class certification and therefore "unfit" under Daubert and (2) the Madden Report was unreliable.
The Madden Report concluded that from 1997 to 2003: (1) African American employees were less likely than comparably qualified white employees to be selected for promotion, (2) African Americans and Hispanics had lower base salaries than comparably qualified whites, and (3) there was an average wage differential at hire by race and ethnicity. The court rejected defendant's motion to preclude the Madden Report in light of the fact that the Madden Report controlled for job hierarchy, job function, age, tenure at Johnson & Johnson, and education.
The court held that Dr. Madden's regressions were not so incomplete that they were unreliable or irrelevant.
The Defendant submitted the Wise Report prepared by Dr. David Wise, an expert on statistical data, to support its contention that the Johnson & Johnson companies were not a single class environment for the purpose of class certification. The Wise Report concluded: (1) there was no common pattern of compensation and promotion consistently adverse to African American and Hispanic employees, (2) the data were inconsistent with the assumption that the determinants of compensation and promotion were the same at all Johnson & Johnson companies, (3) few of the estimated minority effects were statistically different than zero, and (4) to the extent that there were differences in compensation and promotion, they were small and could be explained by small differences between the job-related attributes of minority and white employees.
The court denied plaintiff's motion to strike the expert report as it concluded that the report was not so fatally flawed as to be inadmissible as a matter of law.
Therefore, the court denied both the plaintiff and defendant's motion to strike each other's expert
Background and case from www.dauberttracker.com
The plaintiffs were former and current employees of the defendants Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees against Johnson & Johnson. The case was filed pursuant to Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. ยค 10:5-1.
The expert statistical report, prepared by Dr. Janice Madden and Dr. Alexander Vekker ("Madden Report"), was relied upon by the plaintiff to support their claim of commonality. Defendant filed a motion to strike the Madden Report arguing that (1) the Madden Report was irrelevant to class certification and therefore "unfit" under Daubert and (2) the Madden Report was unreliable.
The Madden Report concluded that from 1997 to 2003: (1) African American employees were less likely than comparably qualified white employees to be selected for promotion, (2) African Americans and Hispanics had lower base salaries than comparably qualified whites, and (3) there was an average wage differential at hire by race and ethnicity. The court rejected defendant's motion to preclude the Madden Report in light of the fact that the Madden Report controlled for job hierarchy, job function, age, tenure at Johnson & Johnson, and education.
The court held that Dr. Madden's regressions were not so incomplete that they were unreliable or irrelevant.
The Defendant submitted the Wise Report prepared by Dr. David Wise, an expert on statistical data, to support its contention that the Johnson & Johnson companies were not a single class environment for the purpose of class certification. The Wise Report concluded: (1) there was no common pattern of compensation and promotion consistently adverse to African American and Hispanic employees, (2) the data were inconsistent with the assumption that the determinants of compensation and promotion were the same at all Johnson & Johnson companies, (3) few of the estimated minority effects were statistically different than zero, and (4) to the extent that there were differences in compensation and promotion, they were small and could be explained by small differences between the job-related attributes of minority and white employees.
The court denied plaintiff's motion to strike the expert report as it concluded that the report was not so fatally flawed as to be inadmissible as a matter of law.
Therefore, the court denied both the plaintiff and defendant's motion to strike each other's expert
Labels: admissibility, Daubert, statistical evidence
posted by The Experts @ 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home