Rehabilitation Expert’s Employability Report Partly Admitted
Posted on August 1, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Jean-Claude Franchitti brought retaliation claims against his former employers, Defendants Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation.
More specifically, Franchitti alleged that Cognizant terminated his employment because he spoke out against the company’s unlawful efforts to eliminate experienced non-Indian employees in its workforce, questioned the legality of fraudulent visa applications the company was submitting to on behalf of Indian workers, and complained about discrimination.
Cognizant retained Rona E. Wexler and Richard V. Turner as expert witnesses to testify about Franchitti’s efforts—or lack thereof—to obtain employment following his termination in 2016. Wexler and Turner coauthored a report (the “Wexler and Turner Report”) that presented their opinion that “Dr. Franchitti failed [to] perform[] a reasonably diligent job search since his separation from Cognizant.”
To rebut the opinions of Wexler and Turner, Franchitti proposed to call at trial Roberto J. Cavazos, who authored an “Expert Rebuttal Report” (the “Cavazos Report”) in response to the Wexler and Turner Report.
Each side filed motions to exclude some or all of the testimony of the other side’s experts.
Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witnesses
Rona E. Wexler, M.A., ADVE/D is the President and Founder of Wexler Vocational and Career Consulting LLC. She holds a B.A. in English and Education from Emerson College and an M.A. in Counseling Psychology and Guidance from New York University. She provides vocational/employability evaluations and expert witness services nationwide.
With over two decades of experience as a Vocational Evaluator, Career Advisor, and Employability Expert, Wexler also brings 12 years of executive recruiting experience, having served as a principal/managing partner and director in two firms.
Wexler is certified as a Diplomate (ABVE/D) by the American Board of Vocational Experts. She has served on the ABVE Board of Directors and chaired the committee responsible for overseeing the standards and credentialing process from 2015 to 2022.
Richard V. Turner, Ph.D., CRC, IPEC is the Director of Research and Evaluations at Wexler Vocational and Career Consulting LLC. He holds a B.S. in Psychology with a minor in Biology from Kansas State University, an M.A. in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education from The University of Iowa, and a Ph.D. in Rehabilitation Counseling from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Turner is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor and received dual training in rehabilitation counseling and clinical mental health.
Moreover, he has experience in integrated care settings providing rehabilitation and counseling services to individuals with serious mental illness, case management for individuals with disabilities, and vocational evaluation, with particular expertise in standardized testing and assessment.
Economics Expert Witness
Roberto J. Cavazos, Ph.D. is a professional economist with over 30 years of experience. He holds a bachelor’s degree, a Master of Public Administration, and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas. Basically, his work has focused on labor issues, including lost earnings in litigation matters, labor-management relations for global multinationals, and research and evaluation projects for the U.S. Department of Labor.
He has served on the faculty of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Florida International University, and Carnegie Mellon University, where he taught graduate-level courses in economics and statistics. He is currently the Analytics Practice Lead at EmployStats, a research firm specializing in economic and statistical analysis for the legal, business, and governmental sectors, and also serves on the faculty of the University of North Texas School of Business.
Discussion by the Court
Franchitti’s Motion
Rule 26
To begin with, Franchitti argued that the co-authors Wexler and Turner report failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule requires an expert’s report to disclose “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Franchitti contended that the Wexler and Turner Report ran afoul of that requirement because it made no “distinction as to which opinions were attributable to which expert.”
Allowing Cognizant to call both Wexler and Turner as experts would run afoul of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which calls for exclusion of evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 403, the Court will permit Cognizant to call only Turner and will exclude Wexler from testifying.
Since Franchitti is entitled to know whether all of the opinions in the Wexler and Turner Report represent the opinions of Cognizant’s testifying expert, Turner, Cognizant was directed to produce a copy of the report to Franchitti with any portions not adopted by Turner as his own struck through.
Next, Franchitti argued that Turner should not be permitted to testify that Franchitti failed to conduct a “diligent” job search following his termination. The Court agreed. It would not be proper for [an expert] to testify as to whether [a Plaintiff’s] efforts to find comparable employment were ‘reasonable’ because this is an ultimate question . . . which is for the jury to decide. However, Turner may testify as to what a reasonable job search, in his experience, typically consists of, and how Franchitti’s job-search efforts compare.
Qualification
Also, Franchitti argued that Wexler and Turner’s opinion as to the amount of time it would have taken Franchitti to find comparable employment should be excluded. Specifically, Franchitti objected to Wexler and Turner’s conclusion that “if Franchitti had exercised a diligent, full-time job search of consistent and diverse activities, in four to six months he would have been hired in an Information Technology Management, Consulting, or similar role.”
Franchitti complained that Wexler and Turner are neither qualified to offer this opinion, nor provide sufficient support for their conclusion. The Court disagreed. As to qualifications, the Court is satisfied that Turner’s professional experience — including prior expert-witness work — renders him sufficiently qualified to opine on the matter.
And as to the reliability of Wexler and Turner’s opinion about the duration of a reasonable job search for someone in Franchitti’s position, the Court agreed that Wexler and Turner’s assessment is admissible.
In short, Wexler and Turner’s use of general studies and their analysis of Franchitti’s age, skill set, labor market, actual job openings in his field, and unemployment rates, taken together, is sufficient. To the extent Franchitti believes otherwise, his remedy is “vigorous cross-examination” and “presentation of contrary evidence.”
Cognizant’s Motion
Cognizant sought to exclude the opinions of Cavazos. Applying the Daubert standard, the Court agreed with Cognizant that Cavazos is not qualified to rebut the employability report because he lacks the relevant expertise in recruiting and career counseling or in Franchitti’s industries — that is, information technology and consulting.
Although Cavazos has a professional and educational background in economics, he has no experience working as a recruiter or career counselor, has neither taken nor taught courses on career counseling or job search efforts, and has never even provided advice on strategies for finding a new job.
Cavazos’s closest experience to career coaching appears to be in his role as a university professor, “helping students try to get employment and giving them ideas.” However, this limited experience does not qualify him to offer opinions on Turner’s expert analysis of Franchitti’s job search.
Held
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Franchitti’s motion to preclude the testimony of Rona E. Wexler and Richard V. Turner.
- The Court granted Cognizant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Roberto J. Cavazos.
Key Takeaway:
Where the co-authors reviewed the same materials and, working together, came to the same opinions and are both prepared to testify to all the opinions in the report, there is no reason why it would be inherently impermissible for them to file a joint report.
On the other hand, Rule 26(a) may be implicated when it isn’t clear whether both experts adhere to all of the opinions in the report and they do not delineate which opinions belong to which expert so as to impede the opposing party’s preparation of effective cross-examination.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Franchitti V. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv2174 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New York Southern |
| Order Date: | July 29, 2025 |
