The research does indicate that people are less likely to rely on stereotypes when they’ve had the opportunity to get to know the other person. But, this does not mean that they stop relying on stereotypes when they’ve gotten to know each other. If you process information visually, picture an x/y graph with two positive slopes; one is a very steep positive slope (for a new acquaintance); the other is somewhat less steep (for someone whom the perceiver has known for a long time).

There are also organizational factors that contribute to or inhibit reliance on stereotypes — Some examples: Is there evidence of other “ist” (racist, sexist, etc.) comments that might suggest something discriminatory about the climate? What, if anything, is the org doing to be inclusive, in the general sense? How subjective were the processes used to make the HR decision? For example, when defendants testify that they relied on their “judgment,” or similar terms, plaintiff’s experts will likely see these terms as code words for “stereotypes.”

A good expert (regardless of his/her area of expertise) will see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. So, I don’t think the assumption that a stereotype expert is a “plaintiff’s expert” is necessarily accrate. The problem, as I see it, is finding a expert for the defense side, when the factors I described in the previous paragraph (and others) do point to discrimination.