All boats rose in 2006

According to an article by DAVID CAY JOHNSTON of the New York Times, Americans enjoyed higher average income in 2006 for the first time since 2000, when the last economic expansion ended, the latest tax data show.

Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006 averaged $58,029. In 2006 dollars that was an increase of $739, or 1.2 percent, from the $57,289 average in 2000, analysis of Internal Revenue Service data showed.

In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the Census Bureau.[3] ... there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 19.26% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.

Income increases did not occur uniformly across the different income strata. Overall, there are 1,699,000 (1.50%) households in the U.S. who earn $250,000 or more while there are 2,566,00 households that earn less than $2,500 per year.

The Intrinsic Value of Economic Testimony in a Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

Using a jury's verdict to determine the value of expert economic testimony

Often times it is difficult for an attorney to determine what value hiring an expert adds to their case. One way to value expert testimony is to consider the award that the jury determines in relationship to the expert's damage estimate. A recent employment case in San Antonio, Texas is particularly insightful.

In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff hired an indiviudal to calculate back and front pay losses. The plaintiff, who began working at the employer in 1979, was terminated in 2005 for opening a confidential document on her computer, while a male employee, who also opened a confidential document a short time later, was not fired or disciplined. The defense hired a rebutal economic expert.

The plaintiff's economic expert opined that the plaintiff had suffered about $950,000 in back and front pay losses. In contrast the defense hired an economist who opined that the plaintiff had lost, at most, $28,000. The defense expert opined that with the plaintiff's background, which was in computers, he was more than capable of obtaining a job that paid as much or more as he earned at the defenfant/employer.

The jury agreed that the plaintiff was the victim of discrimination and awarded, economic damages, mental anguish, and attorneys fees. The award for economic damages is quite insightful in this case.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $330,888 in front and back pay losses. The award was clearly less than the plaintiff's economic expert but more than the defense expert's analysis. One way to look at the value of the economist testimony is to look at what the award would have been had there been had their not been an opposing economist hired by the defense. Conceptually, the jury's award suggest that the value of the defendant's testimony was approximately $619,112.

That is the $950,000 opinion of the plaintiff economist minus the $330,888 award from the jury. The idea is that the jury would have awarded the plaintiff for the full amount of the award had the defense attorney not testified.

Hot tubbing Expert Witnesses

In a recent New York Times article ADAM LIPTAK's article discussed the potential problems associated with having experts that are hired by the individual parties. One interesting possibility to deal with the dueling experts is call 'hot tubbing experts'. While not nearing as fun as it sounds, in the process, (also called concurrent evidence), experts are still chosen by the parties, but they testify together at trial — discussing the case, asking each other questions, responding to inquiries from the judge and the lawyers, finding common ground and sharpening the open issues. The process has been used in Australia