Opinion ID: 777187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tidyman's' Challenges.

Text: 39 Tidyman's attacks the probative value of the statistical evidence on two grounds: (1) that Dr. Polissar used an inappropriate comparison pool; and (2) that Dr. Polissar's analysis did not account for variables such as individual skills and preferences. Both arguments lack merit. 40
41 Courts have long recognized that statistical evidence may be used to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. See, e.g., Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307-08, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977) (Where gross statistical disparities can be shown, they alone may in a proper case constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination.). The statistical evidence, however, must be drawn from appropriate comparison pools. In the context of statistical analysis, comparison pools are the groups of individuals from which data is collected and compared. 11 For example, information gathered from the census would be data from a general population pool. 42 The plaintiffs' expert in this case analyzed a data set comprised entirely of Tidyman's' management employees. Tidyman's contends that consideration of this pool was error because: (a) the data set did not included the qualified individuals for the at-issue jobs, and (b) the data set improperly included store management, instead of only corporate management. We reject both of these arguments. 43
44 In support of its argument that the management data set failed to include the qualified individuals, Tidyman's relies upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 650, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989), the seminal case addressing appropriate comparison pools. In Wards Cove, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the defendant discriminated against black potential employees by either failing to hire them, or hiring them in the lower-wage cannery positions rather than the higher-wage, non-cannery positions. The plaintiffs attempted to introduce evidence comparing the percentages of black and white employees in the cannery positions with the non-cannery positions. Id. at 650, 109 S.Ct. 2115. The Supreme Court found that this comparison analysis could not support a prima facie case of discrimination, because there was no evidence that the employees in the cannery jobs (pool 1) were qualified for the non-cannery jobs (pool 2). Id. at 651, 109 S.Ct. 2115. The Supreme Court found that the analysis between the two pools was therefore not a meaningful measure of discrimination, and that the plaintiffs should have instead introduced evidence comparing the percentage of qualified black persons in the labor market (the qualified labor pool) with the percentage of qualified black persons hired in non-cannery positions (the pool actually hired). Id. at 650, 109 S.Ct. 2115. 45 The general principle of Wards Cove — that the appropriate comparison pool for statistical analysis is the group from which individuals will be chosen for the job action — is appropriately applied in the plaintiffs' analysis, which uses a data set of Tidyman's' management. In Wards Cove, the plaintiffs challenged the hiring practices of the defendant. The appropriate comparison pool in Wards Cove was thus the pool of potential applicants seeking to be hired — i.e., qualified individuals from the general population. 46 In the present case, the plaintiffs challenge the compensation and promotion practices of the defendant. [I]n cases involving claims of promotion and wage discrimination, the employer's own workforce (or a portion thereof) may be the best source for data on the qualified labor market. BARBARA LINDEMAN & PAUL GROSSMAN, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW 1714 (3d Ed.1996). 12 Tidyman's fills higher management by internal promotions. Therefore, the potential applicant pool — and thus the appropriate comparison pool — for promotions to upper and middle management jobs at Tidyman's is comprised of the current employees in lower management positions. The analysis of Tidyman's' management data base included the qualified individuals under consideration for promotions. See Shidaker v. Tisch, 833 F.2d 627, 631 (7th Cir.1987) (Where a company is shown to promote from within, the relevant labor pool of qualified applicants for upper level positions may be the group of employees in the company from which promotees will be drawn.). 47 Use of a data set comprised of the employer's entire management in a case challenging the failure to promote lower management to higher management and pay equal wages is consistent with the principle of Wards Cove, that the comparison pool for analysis should be the group from which individuals will be chosen for the job action, in this case promotion and payment of higher wages. In the instant case, Dr. Polissar testified to the existence of disparities between the percentages of female and male employees of Tidyman's in terms of their movement from middle or lower management to upper management positions. We find that Dr. Polissar appropriately used the employer management data set for his statistical analysis. 48
49 Tidyman's next attacks the plaintiffs' statistical evidence on the ground that Dr. Polissar improperly included the management employees of the local stores within the management data pool — rather than just the corporate management. Tidyman's contends that because the plaintiffs were not qualified for store management positions, the statistical analysis should not have included the store management employees. 13 50 Rather than argue that corporate positions and store management positions require entirely separate qualifications, Tidyman's asserts only that promotion to store management requires special qualifications that the two plaintiffs lacked. Tidyman's does not dispute that store management may be a career path to corporate management for some employees. 14 In other words, while there was contradictory testimony about whether Lamphiear and Hemmings were individually qualified for the store management positions, it was undisputed that store management positions could result in promotion to corporate management positions. 51 Tidyman's' argument misunderstands the purpose of including the store management employees. The data set had to include the store management employees to fully capture the potential pool of internal applicants for the upper level corporate management positions. 15 Inclusion of the store management positions was necessary to analyze and compare promotions between men and women. 16 52 In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert testimony based on the analysis of the data set of Tidyman's' management employees. 17 53
54 Tidyman's next argues that Dr. Polissar's statistical analysis should have been excluded because it did not eliminate all of the possible legitimate nondiscriminatory factors, including the employee's qualifications, level of education, and preferences. This argument also fails. We begin our analysis by noting that the law does not require the near-impossible standard of eliminating all possible nondiscriminatory factors. See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400, 106 S.Ct. 3000, 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986) (Importantly, it is clear that a regression analysis that includes less than `all measurable variables' may serve to prove a plaintiff's case.) (Brennan, J). 55 In Bazemore, the Supreme Court addressed the precise question presented by Tidyman's' appeal: if a study fails to account for all variables, how should a court treat the study? Justice Brennan, writing for the court, explained that [n]ormally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis' probativeness, not its admissibility. 478 U.S. at 400, 106 S.Ct. 3000. In other words, in most cases, objections to the inadequacies of a study are more appropriately considered an objection going to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. See, e.g., Wilmington v. J.I. Case Co., 793 F.2d 909, 920 (8th Cir. 1986) (Virtually all the inadequacies in the expert's testimony urged here by [the defendant] were brought out forcefully at trial.... [T]hese matters go to the weight of the expert's testimony rather than to its admissibility.). 18 Vigorous cross-examination of a study's inadequacies allows the jury to appropriately weigh the alleged defects and reduces the possibility of prejudice. Fireman's Fund, 106 F.3d at 1468; United States v. L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336, 342 (6th Cir.1993). In this case, Tidyman's cross-examined Dr. Polissar extensively about the fact that the study did not account for all possible variables, such as educational differences. 56 In some cases, however, the analysis may be so incomplete as to be inadmissable as irrelevant. Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 400 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 3000. Tidyman's contends that failure to include the employees' individual qualifications, preferences, and education in the analysis rendered the analysis inadmissible under this standard. We disagree. 57 First, Tidyman's did not prove at trial that any of these factors were important to the subjective and undefined promotion process or compensation awards. We have recognized that a defendant may not rest an attack on an unsubstantiated assertion of error. Gen. Tel. Co., 885 F.2d at 580. Rather, the defendant must produce credible evidence that curing the alleged flaws would also cure the statistical disparity. Id. at 583. Accord Sobel v. Yeshiva Univ., 839 F.2d 18, 34 (2d Cir. 1988) ([A] defendant challenging the validity of a multiple regression analysis [must] make a showing that the factors it contends ought to have been included would weaken the showing of a salary disparity made by the analysis.). 58 In this case, the plaintiffs' expert used the best available data, which [came] from the [defendant] itself. Adams v. Ameritech Serv. Inc., 231 F.3d 414, 424 (7th Cir.2000). If the defendant believed information about the employees' educational background, for example, would have explained the differences in promotions and compensation between male and female upper level employees, Tidyman's should have provided information about educational level to the plaintiffs, or at a minimum, introduced testimony that education was a central factor in promotions. 59 We cannot say that the exclusion of preferences, individual qualifications, and education rendered the data set so incomplete as to be irrelevant. Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 400, 106 S.Ct. 3000. Dr. Polissar's regression analysis accounted for experience and seniority within the company. By tracking the employees over time, Dr. Polissar was able to control outside factors that may have contributed to women originally being placed in lower management positions. See Gen. Tel. Co., 885 F.2d at 582 (concluding that the plaintiff's statistical analysis was probative of discrimination despite its failure to include employment interests); Adams, 231 F.3d at 427-28 (concluding that the defendant's objections that the analysis did not control for outside factors went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); Bruno v. W.B. Saunders Co., 882 F.2d 760, 766 (3d Cir.1989) (affirming the district court's admission of statistical studies, despite the failure of the studies to take account of the minimum qualifications of the jobs into which promotion or transfer occurred). 19 60 In sum, the testimony of Dr. Polissar had probative value. The analysis could have helped the jury determine contested facts and evaluate whether the promotion and compensation practices of Tidyman's had a disparate impact or reflected disparate treatment against women at the management level. Any inadequacies in the methodology were presented to the jury by the cross-examination of Dr. Polissar. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony.