Economist Daubert Watch: Sept. 24, 2007, Part I

Objection to defendant's statistical report is not enough to kick report and defeat summary judgement

(see dauberttracker.com for more details)

In Contreras vs. Chertoff, U.S. District Court, D.C., this class action discrimination case was before the district court on defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of current and former Customs Service agents alleging discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Defendant submitted an extensive expert analysis of the discipline files to address the question of whether or not Hispanic customs agents received harsher disciplinary treatment than similarly situated white customs agents. The defendant's concluded that because no disciplined Hispanic and white customs agents were similarly situated, a proper statistical comparison was impossible. Furthermore, even using alternative statistical analysis, there was no evidence indicating discrimination against Hispanic agents in the disciplinary context.

Plaintiffs apparently discovered nothing among these thousands of documents worth presenting to the court to substantiate their claims of discrimination. Instead, their opposition to the renewed motion for summary judgment only complained again that defendant's analysis was inadequate. The plaintiffs' challenged the reliability of the databases relied upon by defendant's expert and the expert's methodology in analyzing the data.

Plaintiffs did not present statistical evidence supporting their claims of discrimination. Instead, they offered studies of Customs employment practices, anecdotal evidence from the named plaintiffs, an expert disputing the defendant's analysis, and the testimony of an expert in management and equal opportunity practices.

Plaintiffs' responses to defendant's motions for summary judgment were insufficient to defeat defendant's renewed motion.