Wage and Hour Expert’s Testimony on Rounded Minutes Admitted
Posted on October 7, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Jennmar manufactures and assembles products for use in agricultural, construction, energy, and mining industries, with locations across the United States. The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly employees of Jennmar. The Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar failed to pay employees wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar’s fifteen-minute time rounding policy, combined with mandatory safety and housekeeping pre-shift work, resulted in hourly employees performing approximately twenty minutes of unpaid compensable work per shift.
The Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of Richard A. Goldberg, an expert witness for Jennmar.
Wage and Hour Expert Witness
Richard A. Goldberg is a partner at Resolution Economics LLC, a firm that conducts economic and statistical analyses related to litigation and consulting matters. He has nearly 19 years of experience in labor and employment-related litigation support and consulting. His engagements involve state and federal wage-and-hour litigation, class action employment discrimination claims, and single-plaintiff matters. In addition, Goldberg partners with companies and their counsel to conduct proactive evaluations of pay equity and compliance with wage-and-hour laws.
Goldberg holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a master’s degree in political science with an emphasis in quantitative research methodology from Columbia University.
Discussion by the Court
The Plaintiffs contended that the methodology employed by Goldberg was not reliable. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued that Goldberg did not address (1) how unpaid hours worked should be calculated; (2) how unpaid wages should not be calculated; and (3) the effects of Jennmar’s rounding practices. Further, the Plaintiffs contended that Goldberg’s testimony would not assist the factfinder to understand the evidence, is irrelevant, and is not rooted in personal knowledge.
However, Goldberg based his conclusions on timekeeping and payroll data provided by Jennmar. Goldberg relied on this data to calculate a series of summary statistics for each employee (including averages, medians, and the percentages of shifts with rounding above or below certain thresholds). Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data.
Goldberg also attested to using the same methodology as Jennmar’s expert to determine the number of allegedly rounded minutes for each shift.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Goldberg.
Key Takeaway:
Goldberg’s work includes evaluating large data sets, such as timeclock entries and payroll information.
The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert’s opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.
Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Stacy Et Al V. Jennmar Corporation Of Virginia, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:21cv15 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Virginia Western |
| Order Date: | September 30, 2025 |
