Religious Studies Expert’s Testimony on the Beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses Admitted
Posted on September 1, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Brianna Bolden-Hardge is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and believes her faith forbids her from “swearing primary allegiance to any human government” and “swearing to engage in political or military activity—including taking up of arms.”
She applied for a position with the Office of the California State Controller (“SCO”) and received an offer. However, her religious beliefs prevented her from signing an oath that the California Constitution requires public employees to take.
Bolden-Hardge proposed signing the oath with an addendum expressing her own views on what she affirmed, which SCO understood to be a modification, not in conformance with applicable law, and thus rescinded the offer of employment. As a result, she alleged violations of her legal protections for religious freedom and accommodation.
Plaintiff relied on certain expert opinions by Paul Finkelman, Ph.D., and Mathew N. Schmalz, Ph.D. Defendants filed a motion to exclude certain expert opinions of Finkelman and Schmalz. At the outset, the Court denied as moot the motion as to Finkelman because the Court did not find his opinions to be particularly helpful or relevant. Schmalz’s testimony on the other hand, was critical to Plaintiff’s Title VII disparate impact claim.
Religious Studies Expert Witness
Mathew N. Schmalz is a Professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross. He has published multiple research papers and essays on Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Schmalz has served as “the academic expert commentator for programs on television/digital platforms that have reported on Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “provided expert commentary on Jehovah’s Witnesses for national media outlets,” and is currently serving as an expert consultant on pending legal cases “to provide context on Watchtower beliefs and practices and the internal dynamics shaping Jehovah’s Witness life.”
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Paul Finkelman is a specialist in American legal history, constitutional law, law and religion, civil rights and race relations, African American history, civil liberties, American Constitutional history, the American Civil War, and legal issues surrounding baseball.
He was an expert witness in a number of cases including the lawsuit over the ownership of Barry Bonds’ 73rd home run ball (Popov v. Hayashi) and in the famous Alabama Ten Commandments Monument Case (Glassroth v. Moore).
Discussion by the Court
In this case, Schmalz was retained by the Plaintiff to “provide expert analysis and possible testimony concerning the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning oaths.”
Defendants did not contest that Schmalz’s testimony is helpful, as it goes to the core of the disparate impact claim. Defendants also did not substantively argue that Schmalz is unqualified. While they stated that Schmalz has not published research on Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1998, they did not explain why this gap in time precludes him from being qualified to opine on matters in this case. Instead, Defendants’ principal argument is that portions of Schmalz’s opinions are so unreliable, speculative or constitute improper legal conclusions that they must be excluded. The Court disagreed.
The Court found that Schmalz’s opinions are “based on sufficient facts or data” to survive Defendants’ motion to exclude.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of Dr. Mathew N. Schmalz’s testimony.
Key Takeaway:
After an expert establishes admissibility to the judge’s satisfaction, challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Bolden-Hardge V. Office Of The California State Controller Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:20cv2081 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | August 29, 2025 |
