Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on the Causes and Effects of Sexual Harassment
Posted on October 3, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Raeshon Strickland filed a lawsuit against Associated Foods Stores, Inc., alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work environment. Strickland further contended that she experienced retaliation after opposing or reporting the misconduct.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude part of the expert report prepared by Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D. while Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Defendant’s expert Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. under Rule 702.
Psychology Expert Witnesses
Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., is a Professor Emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a distinguished career dedicated to understanding and addressing gender-based violence, workplace sexual harassment, and women’s psychological well-being.
Fitzgerald received her Ph.D. in Psychology from The Ohio State University in 1979, following her M.A. from the same institution and a B.A. in Psychology (magna cum laude) from the University of Maryland. Her academic journey has been marked by a steadfast commitment to investigating sexual harassment, particularly in institutional settings such as academia, the military, and the workplace.
Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. is a fellowship-trained forensic psychologist. Her areas of expertise include evaluations for the criminal courts, family court and civil matters.
She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Utah.
Discussion by the Court
a. Defendant’s Motion to Partially Exclude
Fitzgerald’s testimony pertains to “the nature, extent and causation of the [alleged] injures, damages, losses, and harms sustained by [Plaintiff],” among other things.
Defendant sought to exclude only Part II of her report, which contains “a review of the scientific literature on sexual harassment: its nature, organizational causes, and its psychological consequences to the individuals who experience it.” Defendant did not challenge Fitzgerald’s qualifications, but argues that Part II of the report is not reliable or relevant under Rule 702, and is unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
The Defendant first argued that Part II of Fritzgerald’s report is not relevant because it “provided academic theories of sexual harassment,” with no “analysis specific to [Plaintiff] or [Defendant]” regarding “the alleged emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff because of her employment at AFS,” and because it will not “advance a material aspect of the case.”
Upon reviewing Part II, the Court concluded it is relevant. The studies found in Part II provide the scientific knowledge upon which Fitzgerald’s conclusions are based in part and are not themselves conclusions about the case. Rather, and in addition to the studies, Fitzgerald’s ultimate opinions rest on “the facts of the present case,” and “methods of clinical science.”
Here, Part II discussed the causes of sexual harassment, emotional and psychological consequences of sexual harassment, and organizational climate for sexual harassment. Because the scientific studies cited to in Part II go beyond mere discussion of gender stereotypes, the Court found that Part II will help the trier of fact understand issues that are not “well within a layperson’s common knowledge.”
b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
Plaintiff argued that Cohn’s report is unreliable because (1) she did not conduct a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff; (2) she did not ask to review the documentation from Plaintiff’s expert’s evaluation; (3) she did not understand the diagnostic importance of the specificity of certain trauma symptoms; and (4) her report contains certain factual errors and faulty assumptions.
However, Cohn’s testimony does not seek to diagnose Plaintiff, but instead opines as to the purported flawed reasoning of Fitzgerald. The Court agreed with Defendant that it is reasonable for Cohn to rely on only the relevant documents available in the case, including Plaintiff’s therapy records, Fitzgerald’s report, pleadings, deposition transcripts, and other court filings.
The Court further agreed with Defendant that the mere fact Cohn did not review the underlying data of Fitzgerald’s evaluation of Plaintiff, alone, does not cause Cohn’s expert report as a whole to be unreliable under Rule 702.
Held
- The Court denied Defendant’s partial motion to exclude the testimony of Louise Fitzgerald.
- The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert witness, Nancy Cohn.
Key Takeaway:
Courts have excluded expert testimony involving gender stereotypes on the grounds that such testimony could be understood by a lay person. Fitzgerald’s report discusses causes and effects of sexual harassment in the workplace, as opposed to general stereotypes.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Strickland V. Associated Food Stores |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv30 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Utah |
| Order Date: | September 30, 2025 |
