Drive-by Daubert Ruling
Judge throws out employment discrimination evidence on the way to a summary judgment for the plaintiffs...
In the last few years, the idea of stereo typing and racial profiling has really gained traction in employment discrimination cases. Prof. Bielby, a now well known sociologist from the University of Penn, has done a lot of research that suggest that race and gender stereotyping is unavoidable and happens all the time in the workplace.
In this case gender based employment discrimination case (CHADWICK v. WELLPOINT INC et al Federal Court-Maine), the plaintiffs alleged that the the employer had a policy of stereotyping female employees. In particular, the plaintiff was a mother of four who claims that she was discriminated against and should have received a job promotion that went to another employee.
The plaintiffs engaged a qualified sociologist with a Ph.D. from Cornell, who had studied and wrote her dissertation on the topic of gender stereotyping. She testified that some of the statements that were made by management were consistent with gender stereotyping behavior within the work place.
The judge, in a drive-by Daubert, disregarded her testimony stating that it would not help the trier of fact in this situation. He goes on to say in the court's order:
While the judge did not make any assessment her qualifications or the underlying methodology she used in the report, he says:
In the last few years, the idea of stereo typing and racial profiling has really gained traction in employment discrimination cases. Prof. Bielby, a now well known sociologist from the University of Penn, has done a lot of research that suggest that race and gender stereotyping is unavoidable and happens all the time in the workplace.
In this case gender based employment discrimination case (CHADWICK v. WELLPOINT INC et al Federal Court-Maine), the plaintiffs alleged that the the employer had a policy of stereotyping female employees. In particular, the plaintiff was a mother of four who claims that she was discriminated against and should have received a job promotion that went to another employee.
The plaintiffs engaged a qualified sociologist with a Ph.D. from Cornell, who had studied and wrote her dissertation on the topic of gender stereotyping. She testified that some of the statements that were made by management were consistent with gender stereotyping behavior within the work place.
The judge, in a drive-by Daubert, disregarded her testimony stating that it would not help the trier of fact in this situation. He goes on to say in the court's order:
The plaintiff would like to have her expert testify about the extent of
sex based stereotyping in the United States and its workplaces, the meaning of certain words (for example, that “Bless you” in the context in which Miller
said it shows sexual stereotyping; likewise for the other supervisor’s
comment about child discipline strategy), and that it is very unlikely that a
man would have been told that he had too much on his plate because of school
and children. For the reasons I describe below, I conclude that the expert’s
testimony would not be helpful to a fact finder on the issues that are relevant to this decision....
While the judge did not make any assessment her qualifications or the underlying methodology she used in the report, he says:
The proposed expert testimony about the prevalence of sex-based stereotypes
in America is no substitute for actual evidence (direct or circumstantial)
about these decision makers and their beliefs and behaviors. The expert,
whatever her professional credentials, is not competent to testify about what these supervisors meant, consciously or unconsciously, in using certain words.
Labels: Daubert, employment cases
posted by The Experts @ 1:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home