Expert Testimony on the Professional Standard of Law Enforcement Officers Excluded
Posted on June 28, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Suzanne Stewart filed a gender discrimination and retaliation suit against the City of Arcola after Mayor Fred Burton terminated Stewart’s employment as “a direct result of policy violations related to insubordination and [her] unprofessionalism.”
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the opinion of Defendant’s expert Michael W. Thaler.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Michael W. Thaler has extensive experience in law enforcement. He served as a law enforcement officer for over 40 years, during which he has served as the Assistant Chief of Police and Executive Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Houston and the Chief of Police for the City of Pasadena.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant argued that Thaler offered an opinion on whether Plaintiff’s conduct could be considered insubordination. However, the Court held that Thaler’s declaration went well beyond that scope.
Thaler purported to analyze “the civil action filed on behalf of Suzanne Stewart regarding her allegations of being discriminated against and terminated when she complained of ‘inappropriate comments’ made by the Mayor which were directed at her.” However, that merely summarized the case. It was the responsibility of the Court to analyze the civil action, not that of a non-lawyer expert.
He further wrote that his “conclusions and opinions are based on an analysis of these materials by applying his law enforcement and administrative experience, education, and training regarding application of the applicable provisions of Texas and federal laws … Texas Administrative Code, Title 37; Texas Local Government Code 614; and Texas Occupational Code § 1701.452(a), (b).”
The Court found that these were attempts by a non-lawyer expert to present legal conclusions under the guise of a legal analysis on a case-dispositive issue.
At times, Thaler opines without rendering conclusions of law. For example, he writes that “there is no greater show of disrespect to the authority of a superior than to publicly challenge the decisions of a ranking officer with the type of profane laden language and unsupported salacious accusations as those made by the Plaintiff.” Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that expert testimony is unnecessary if “the jury could adeptly assess this situation using only their common experience and knowledge.”
The Court concluded that Thaler’s opinion was, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, untethered to his qualifications.
Held
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the opinion of Defendant’s expert Michael W. Thaler.
Key Takeaway:
Experts cannot render conclusions of law or provide opinions on legal issues. A jury, using their common experience and knowledge, could adeptly assess that publicly challenging a supervisor with profanity-ridden language while accusing them of extramarital affairs is indeed disrespectful.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Stewart V. City Of Arcola |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv4387 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Southern |
| Order Date: | June 24, 2025 |
