--- title: "Human Resources Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Employees’ Rights" meta: "og:description": "The human resources expert was not allowed to testify regarding the rights and obligations of employees and employers under the FMLA" "og:title": "Human Resources Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Employees’ Rights" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The human resources expert was not allowed to testify regarding the rights and obligations of employees and employers under the FMLA" --- # Human Resources Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Employees’ Rights Posted on May 13, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff Toby Pack, a CSX employee, applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to chronic kidney stones. Although CSX initially approved Pack’s application, it subsequently charged him with FMLA misuse and terminated him. Pack sued, alleging that CSX fired him in retaliation for his taking FMLA leave. Pack intended to offer the expert testimony of [Beth De Lima](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Beth-De%20Lima/1572476), but CSX argued that De Lima’s testimony should be excluded. ## **Human Resources Expert Witness** [Beth B. De Lima](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Beth-De%20Lima/1572476) has extensive experience in developing and implementing HR programs and policies that relate to federal and state employment legislation. She has been assisting corporate, non-profit, and governmental clients with HR policy development and implementation since 1992. She has worked closely with clients to establish and maintain compliance with federal and state employment legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). [Get the full story on challenges to Beth De Lima ’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1572476&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** De Lima’s report touches on several topics, including employees’ legal rights under the FMLA and employers’ legal obligations under the FMLA. ### **A. Relevance** The jury in this case will be asked to determine whether CSX terminated Pack in retaliation for Pack’s use of FMLA leave. CSX argued that De Lima’s opinion is not relevant to that question. The Court agreed. CSX’s alleged noncompliance with industry standards did not make it any more likely that CSX retaliated against Pack. If CSX had deviated from its own standard procedures in investigating Pack, that might be probative of retaliation. But CSX having different procedures from other companies did not show that CSX’s explanation for terminating Pack is “unworthy of credence.” ### **B. Reliability** In her report, De Lima said that the industry standards to which she alludes are “set forth by the Society for Human Resource Management.” But the report never cited specific documents or guidance promulgated by this organization. During her deposition, De Lima confirmed that the standards on which she relied are “written down.” However, when asked which of the sources in her bibliography support her opinions, she was unable to provide an answer. Instead, she asserted that the FMLA itself supports her opinions. When asked which part of the FMLA supports her opinions, she said “it’s not clear.” In his supplemental briefing, Pack identified five publications from The Society for Human Resources Management which he claims supported De Lima’s opinion. But the supplement never asserted that De Lima actually relied on those publications in forming her opinion and none of the publications are included in De Lima’s bibliography. Since neither Pack nor De Lima has identified the basis for De Lima’s testimony, they are too unreliable to be admitted under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). Even if De Lima’s opinion were relevant, the Court would exclude it under Rule 702. ## **Held** The Court granted Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Beth De Lima. ## **Key Takeaway** Nothing in either _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the _ipse dixit_ of the expert. The trial court’s gatekeeping function requires more than simply taking the expert’s word for it. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Industrial Hygiene Expert's Contaminated House Theory Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-22T191941.479.jpg) [**Industrial Hygiene Expert’s Contaminated House Theory Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-resources-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-employees-rights/industrial-hygiene-experts-contaminated-house-theory-admitted)![Correctional Healthcare Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Drug Addiction](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-22T174929.135.jpg) [**Correctional Healthcare Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Drug Addiction**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-resources-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-employees-rights/correctional-healthcare-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-drug-addiction)![Accident Reconstruction Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Statutory Violation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-22T142444.026.jpg) [**Accident Reconstruction Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Statutory Violation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-resources-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-employees-rights/accident-reconstruction-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-statutory-violation)![Fire Investigation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on UL Listing](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-21T150819.636.jpg) [**Fire Investigation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on UL Listing**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-resources-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-employees-rights/fire-investigation-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-ul-listing)![Pulmonary Medicine Expert's COPD Opinions Admitted](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-20T195112.411.jpg) [**Pulmonary Medicine Expert’s COPD Opinions Admitted**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-resources-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-employees-rights/pulmonary-medicine-experts-copd-opinions-admitted)