Vocational Rehabilitation Expert is Qualified to Serve as an Expert on the ADA and Loss of Earnings
Posted on May 20, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
It all started when Plaintiff, Maurice Young (“Young”), was employed by Defendant, Jabil, Inc. (“Jabil”) in the role of Machine Operator I (“Operator”). It should be noted that Young suffers from osteoarthritis in his hips which limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk.
Young asked for a new accommodation, applying for the Engineering Technician I position (“Engineering Technician”) on October 29, 2022. However, Young’s employment with Jabil was officially terminated on November 1, 2022. As a result, Young contended that Jabil failed to accommodate him for other positions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
On October 22, 2024, Young submitted the expert report of Dr. John Dieckman. Dieckman provided an ultimate conclusion that Jabil had alternate employment opportunities that they could have offered to Young as a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, Dieckman opined that Young lost at least $36,563 in earnings and $6,033 in benefits.
Defendants filed a motion to strike the testimony of Dieckman primarily because he is not a qualified expert as to ADA compliance and economic losses.
Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Dr. John Dieckman is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor and Certified Disability Management Rehabilitation Specialist. He has held the position of Assistant Vocational Director at Proto-Worx since 2000.
At Proto-Worx, Dieckman oversees the development, training, supervision, and direction of vocational staff. He has previously testified regarding wage loss, liability, and economic recovery in federal and state courts as well as in administrative hearings.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants sought to preclude Dieckman’s report as it pertains to both his ADA and Loss of Earnings findings.
Dieckman explained that his vocational assessment was based on a review of numerous documents, including Jabil performance reviews of Young, the Jabil physician questionnaire, emails between Young and Jabil employees regarding the accommodation process, and a review of Jabil job listings.
Dieckman explained that his analysis of lost earnings was based on a review of Young’s W-2 forms and taxes between 2018 and 2023.
ADA Arguments
1. Dieckman is not a qualified expert as to ADA compliance because Dieckman does not have any medical training or licenses
2. Dieckman’s methodology regarding ADA compliance is unreliable because his finding that Jabil did not provide Young a reasonable accommodation was based solely on public job descriptions and conversations with Young
3. Dieckman cannot opine on whether Jabil provided Young a reasonable accommodation because Dieckman did not interview anyone at Jabil as to what positions Young could perform or review job postings from the relevant period.
Economic Loss Arguments
1. Dieckman is not a qualified expert as to economic losses because Dieckman does not have any economics or business certifications or training
2. Dieckman’s methodology regarding economic losses is unreliable because his finding that Young was entitled to economic losses was based on open positions as of May 2024, whereas the economic loss assessment covers the period between July 2022 and March 2023, and was calculated based on full time employment when Young was on a part-time schedule prior to his termination.
3. Dieckman cannot opine on whether Jabil violated the ADA because Dieckman cannot provide a conclusion as to whether Young’s requested accommodations were an undue burden or whether Jabil should have placed Young into a new position
4. Dieckman’s conclusions regarding Young’s economic losses would not help the jury because they are purely speculative.
Analysis
Qualification
With his formal training in vocational rehabilitation, the Court held that Dieckman is a qualified vocational expert. After all, Dieckman has over thirty years’ experience as an Assistant Vocational Director wherein he has performed vocational evaluations of injured and disabled individuals and produced reports regarding wage and earning loss.
Reliability
Defendants’ challenge to Dieckman’s vocational assessment pertains to Dieckman’s failure to interview any Jabil employees. The Court held that Defendants’ challenge to the report’s credibility can be “addressed through vigorous cross-examination [rather] than through threshold exclusion.”
Defendants’ challenge to Dieckman’s analysis of lost earnings pertains to Dieckman’s use of open positions as of May 2024 instead of July 2022 to March 2023 and calculation of lost earnings based on full-time employment.
As to Dieckman’s use of positions available as of May 2024, Dieckman was aware, from his interview with Young and review of the records, that Young had applied for an open Engineering Technician position. While Dieckman reviewed additional job postings as of May 2024, and determined that Young would have been able to fulfill the requirements for most of the positions, this does not negate Dieckman’s knowledge of at least one open position from the relevant period that he determined Young was able to perform.
Moreover, the Court held that Dieckman’s use of full-time employment to calculate Young’s lost earnings is premised on the assumption that had Jabil provided Young a reasonable accommodation, such as a transfer to the Engineering Technician position, Young would have been able to return to work full-time.
Courts in this Circuit have held that the future earning capacity model, which would allow for greater damages than identified by Dieckman’s Report, “is an accepted and reliable method for calculating future lost earnings.”
Fit
Dieckman’s vocational assessment and wage loss analysis is connected to the questions presented in this case, namely whether (1) Jabil failed to reasonably accommodated Young, and (2) if Jabil violated the ADA, what damages Young is entitled to. Dieckman’s assessment will assist the trier of fact in answering whether Young was able to perform other positions at Jabil and what wages Young lost as a result of his termination.
Thus, the Court held that there is a sufficient nexus between the facts of the case and Dieckman’s Report to satisfy the “fit” standard.
Oral Argument
The decision to hold a Daubert hearing is discretionary with the Court and is not necessary when “the facts upon which the Court must make its determination have been adequately presented to the Court in the parties’ papers and accompanying exhibits.”
Based on the Court’s review of Dieckman’s Report and the parties’ submissions, which the Court finds are sufficient to render a determination, a Daubert hearing is not warranted in this case.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to strike the testimony of Dr. John Dieckman.
Key Takeaway:
- Dieckman’s report met the Daubert standard because he articulated his methodology and the sources on which he relied.
- Dieckman is qualified because he has performed vocational evaluations of injured and disabled individuals and produced reports regarding wage and earning loss.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Young V. Jabil, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv4992 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern |
| Order Date: | May 19, 2025 |
