Employment Expert’s Testimony on the Work Environment Excluded
Posted on January 19, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises from an employment dispute involving Defendant Gannett Co., Inc., doing business as USA Today. Plaintiff Taylor Bailey, a former Gannett employee, asserted claims against Gannett for breach of contract and sex discrimination under Title VII.
Bailey retained Chris S. Thrutchley provide expert opinions and testify regarding Plaintiff’s allegations and Defendant’s alleged conduct in this action.
Gannett sought to exclude Thrutchley’s expert report and opinions pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Employment Expert Witness
Chris S. Thrutchley is an attorney with over thirty years experience in employment and labor law. His experience includes serving as the Director of Human Resources for one of Oklahoma’s largest employers, in which capacity he ensured employment policies, processes, and practices were legally compliant.
Additionally, from 2014 to 2016, Thrutchley served as Chief of the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights Enforcements, in which capacity he led a team of agents and attorneys in enforcing the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Thrutchley currently serves as the employment law practice group leader for a large Oklahoma law firm, as well as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association for employment disputes arising in Oklahoma. Finally, Thrutchley has been certified by the HR Certification Institute as a “Senior Professional in Human Resources,” and by the Society for Human Resources Management as a “Senior Certified Professional.”
Discussion by the Court
Gannett primarily contended that Thrutchley’s opinions constituted impermissible legal conclusions.
Legal Conclusions
First, in the “Legal Standards” section, Thrutchley purported to summarize the applicable “legal standards” and, in doing so, impermissibly sought to “define the law of the case.”
Further, throughout the report, Thrutchley applied the “legal and policy standards to the facts” in order to opine that certain conduct constituted, or raised an inference of, “sex-based harassment.” Likewise, Thrutchley opined that certain actions by Gannett interfered with Bailey’s employment and “would amount to a materially adverse employment action, an element of unlawful retaliation” or that “an inference of retaliatory motive” arises “capable of surviving summary judgment.” Thrutchley also opined that Gannett created a “hostile” or “toxic” work environment satisfying “the essential elements of a hostile work environment harassment claim.”
The Court held that Thrutchley’s opinions in this regard impermissibly stated a legal conclusion by applying the laws to the facts.
Thrutchley also opined that Gannett’s responses to the Texas Workforce Commission’s investigation into Bailey’s unemployment benefits claim were “demonstrably false.” An expert may not offer testimony regarding credibility. Given that it is the jury’s role to determine credibility, the minimal probative value of Thrutchley’s opinions in this regard is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, the opinions are also excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Finally, Thrutchley offered opinions regarding Gannett’s internal policies and Defendant’s compliance with same. However, Gannett’s policies are not so complicated to require expert testimony.
Thrutchley also opined as to best practices upon receipt of a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation complaint, and that Gannett failed to follow same.
Such opinions are not prohibited legal conclusions and, further, may be helpful to the jury. Thus, the Court declined to exclude the opinions as impermissibly usurping this Court’s role to articulate the law and the jury’s duty to apply same.
Reliability
Gannett argued that Thrutchley’s opinions on best practices upon receipt of a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation complaint must nevertheless be excluded as the product of an unreliable methodology.
Having reviewed Thrutchley’s opinions, the Court concluded that it is more likely than not that his opinions in this regard reflect a reliable application of his knowledge and experience to the facts of the case.
Gannett next criticized Thrutchley’s opinions as lacking a sufficient foundation due to his reliance on hearsay and his alleged “adopting both the allegations of Plaintiff and her legal positions.”
First, with respect to Gannett’s criticism of Thrutchley’s reliance on hearsay, “Rule 703 allows an expert witness to base his testimony upon facts or data that are hearsay, provided that those facts or data are ‘of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject.'”
The Court observed that Thrutchley did not merely parrot the out-of-court statements but, instead, utilized the statements to form his own independent opinions. Accordingly, Thrutchley’s reliance on hearsay is not improper.
Insofar as Gannett criticized Thrutchley as effectively adopting Bailey’s version of events, Thrutchley stated that he reviewed the Texas Workforce Commission Hearing Transcripts, the Amended Complaint and the EEOC Charge as well as various documents produced in discovery.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that it is more likely than not that Thrutchley’s opinions are based on sufficient facts and data and the opinions are the product of a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Gannett’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chris Thrutchley
Key Takeaway
An expert may not go so far as to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine credibility. Moreover, Gannett’s policies are not so complicated to require expert testimony. Rather, a lay juror with “normal experiences and qualifications” can review Gannett’s policies and determine whether Gannett complied with, or violated, those policies in response to Bailey’s complaint.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Bailey V. Gannett Co., Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 4:22cv86 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern |
| Order Date: | January 16, 2026 |
