Discrimination Expert's Opinions on Race and Gender Excluded

Plaintiff, Erika Woolfolk brought this action against Defendants Liberty University, Inc. and Ashley Ann Reich, alleging that she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment.

Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of Dr. Jennie Weiner—Plaintiff's proffered social science expert.

Discrimination Expert Witness

Dr. Jennie Miles Weiner holds an Ed.D. in administration, planning, and social policy from Harvard University. She is a Professor of Educational Leadership and the Department Chair at the University of Connecticut, where she has taught for thirteen years.

In total, Weiner has published three books, more than 50 peer-reviewed articles, and multiple book chapters in her areas of expertise. Of these, she has published many pieces on gender and racial discrimination in her field of educational leadership and in organizational psychology in peer-reviewed journals as well as in several edited research volumes.

Get the full story on challenges to Jennie Weiner’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

The Court granted this motion because Weiner's opinions on race are inextricably intertwined with her opinions on gender. For example, her report repeatedly suggests that Black men are treated more favorably than Black women, demonstrating that her opinions rely heavily on gender discrimination in conjunction with racial discrimination. While the Court recognizes the concept of intersectionality—i.e., that different identities like race, sex, sexuality, class, and age can overlap—Title VII does not. Plaintiff did not raise gender discrimination claims or exhaust those claims before the EEOC. She cannot now backdoor a gender discrimination theory through expert testimony, which will only confuse the jury in the race discrimination case.

Additionally, the Court is unfamiliar with a single decision by the Fourth Circuit or another district court in this Circuit applying Daubert in the context of a "social framework" expert, which makes it more difficult to assess admissibility here. But since the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's excessive work and remote work claims, Weiner's proposed testimony seems far less relevant or helpful to a jury. Plaintiff's only remaining discrimination claims—disparate pay and failure to promote—are supported by concrete, case-specific evidence that the jury can easily understand. After all, race discrimination in the workplace is not unfamiliar to the average American and is therefore something that is well within a jury's "everyday experience."

Ultimately, though, the Court's decision is not based on Weiner's credentials or the reliability of her opinion. Her opinion is simply overbroad and would inject irrelevant, unpleaded, and unexhausted theories of discrimination into this case.

Held

The Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Jennie Weiner.

Key Takeaway

The Court understands that Daubert's reliability standard is often applied to social scientists, not just hard scientists, and that social scientists should be permitted to proffer opinions if: (1) they demonstrate the same intellectual rigor demanded by Daubert; (2) their opinions are within their special skill sets or experiences; and (3) their opinions would assist the jury determine a fact in issue.

Case Details: