Excerpt	Relies on statistical evidence?
However, a review of the "over base level" numbers of the four comparators and Escalera in core endourology reflects significant differences in the severity of losses between the comparators and Escalera during the January through June 2015 time period. Escalera's utilization of different time periods for each comparator within 2015 is not appropriate when examining the team managers' performances given Bard Medical's Solo/Skylite production products. Using the same time frame for each comparator, the record reflects that between January through June of 2015, Kunzinger was $55,626.89 below base, Santoro was $160,651.77 above base, Peters was $20,070.56 above base, and Martin was $79,932.38 above base. (Ottley Dep. Exs. 3, 12, 14, 16.) These numbers demonstrate that the "losses" experienced by the comparators during the same time period as Escalera are not substantially identical. Escalera's loss of base was $68,799.06 more than [**25] the closest comparator he identified. Additionally, comparing the "over base level" numbers of the comparators and Escalera between January through October 2015 reflects that at the time Escalera was terminated he had suffered significantly more loss over base than his identified comparators: Escalera was [*805] $174,792.44 below base, Kunzinger was $101,132.60 below base,3 Santoro was $110,078.73 above base, Peters was $31,876.80 below base, and Martin was $1,611.79 below base. Because of these significant differences in losses, no reasonable jury could find that these four comparators and Escalera are similarly situated in all relevant respects.	No
Equally without evidentiary significance is the statistical analysis of the list of 17; indeed, the analysis was not even admissible under HN4 the standard of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), governing the admissibility of expert testimony, which requires the district judge to satisfy himself that the expert is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting. E.g., Braun v. Lorillard Inc., 84 F.3d 230, 234-35 (7th Cir. 1996); Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 78 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 1996); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316-19 (9th Cir. 1995); cf. Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. [**7] Exchange National Bank, 877 F.2d 1333, 1339 (7th Cir. 1989). Although the expert used standard statistical methods for determining whether there was a significant correlation between age and retention for the 17 persons on the list, see Michael O. Finkelstein & Bruce Levin, Statistics for Lawyers 157 (1990) (Fisher's exact test), the omission of Sebring and Shulman from the sample tested was arbitrary. The expert should at least have indicated the sensitivity of his analysis to these omissions. More important is the expert's failure to correct for any potential explanatory variables other than age. Completely ignored was the more than remote possibility that age was correlated with a legitimate job-related qualification, such as familiarity with computers. Everyone knows that younger people are on average more comfortable with computers than older people are, just as older people are on average more comfortable with manual-shift cars than younger people are. Three weeks of training might go some distance toward closing the computer-literacy gap, yet it would be more surprising than otherwise if so short a period of training could close the gap completely. The expert could easily [**8] have inquired about the feasibility of ascertaining through discovery the history of the use of computers by each of the employees on the list of 17.	Yes