Junk social science testimony going to ultimate issue of retaliatory motive inadmissible
February 2, 2004law.com has this article from The Recorder (Mike McKee): “Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Lab Firing Verdict; Expert testimony at issue in case”
A big verdict against Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for firing a longtime employee after testifying against the agency in a sexual harassment case was gutted Wednesday when key expert testimony was thrown out on appeal.Good decision; but sorry comment on California courts that it was incorrectly ruled in the trial court, necessitating this appeal. Experts may be helpful on some issues in discrimination cases, but not on things a jury can decide based on common sense and life experience.
San Francisco’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that testimony by industrial psychologist Jay Finkelman on behalf of 14-year employee Dee Kotla was inadmissible . . . because he provided information that didn’t require an expert opinion.
Kotla, a computer support technician, . . . claimed she was the victim of retaliation for testifying for . . . a secretary she supervised, in a sexual harassment suit . . . .
Finkelman was brought in to testify that several facts — including negative comments about Kotla by in-house counsel Gabriela Odell — were “indicators” of the lab’s retaliatory intent. . . .
In Wednesday’s ruling, the appeal court said Finkelman’s testimony didn’t help the jurors.
“Instead,” it held, “that testimony created an unacceptable risk that the jury paid unwarranted deference to Dr. Finkelman’s purported expertise when in reality he was in no better position than they were to evaluate the evidence concerning retaliation.” . . .
“We find no basis in the record for believing that Dr. Finkelman possessed any special expertise for weighing the evidence of motive in a wrongful termination case,” . . .
Related Posts
Fourth Circuit uses prima facie case to dispose of…
How NOT To Do Employee Training: Spanking Trainees
Get Spanked by your Employer, Win 1/2 million dollars!
In coworker harassment case, 4th Cir. discusses "because of sex"; constructive knowledge from failure to provide adequate complaint procedure
More Damages in Spanking Case!
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 2nd, 2004 at 7:26 pm and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.