Opinion ID: 618714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Bernard Siskin

Text: After reviewing Wright's opinion, the District Court examined the report of North Hudson's expert, Dr. Bernard Siskin, to determine whether his findings undermined or contradicted the prima facie statistical evidence presented by Wright. Siskin calculated the expected number of African-Americans in North Hudson using the scores and rankings of actual applicants in the 1999, 2002, and 2006 NJDOP testing cycles. Siskin created new eligibility lists using final test scores and veteran status to rank the candidates as though the candidate pool had included: (1) Hudson County, (2) the Tri-County Area, (3) a five-mile radius, or (4) a ten-mile radius. As the District Court noted, [u]sing the actual DOP test results obviously accounts for the requirement that the population being compared is `qualified.' Id. Although expanding the eligibility list to include Hudson County or a five-mile radius added only one to two African-Americans to the top thirty-five candidates depending on the exam year, when the list was expanded to include the Tri-County Area, which was the relevant labor market according to the District Court, six to twelve African-American applicants placed in the top thirty-five, and six to fifteen placed in the top fifty. Yet, the actual Residents-Only Lists from those years included no African-Americans in that range. Overall gains in the top ninety also were substantial, with expansion to include the Tri-County Area adding eleven to nineteen African-American candidates. Thus, the District Court found that including the Tri-County Area caused a significant number of African Americans [to be] added to the DOP lists. Id. Siskin's report noted that these gains came primarily at the expense of Hispanics, who moved down, often significantly, in the hypothetical expanded-list rankings. Siskin concluded that Caucasians would benefit most from an expansion of North Hudson's hiring area. Siskin acknowledged that his original hypothetical rankings assumed two things: (i) that [non-resident candidates] would necessarily prefer appointment to [North Hudson] compared to any other jurisdiction they sought; and (ii) that they would be as likely to receive an appointment offer from [North Hudson] as from any other jurisdiction. Because Siskin considered these assumptions unrealistic, he next calculated the hypothetical rankings omitting all non-resident candidates who received appointments elsewhere during that hiring cycle, under the premise that they would have accepted those appointments instead of continuing to compete for a job with North Hudson. [7] Removing these otherwise-appointed candidates from the hypothetical expanded eligibility lists had varied effects for the different years studied. For the 1999 hypothetical expanded list, it had no effect at all; the top thirty-five still contained twelve more African-Americans than North Hudson's Residents-Only List. For the 2002 expanded list, there was no change to the top thirty-five (still six more African-Americans than on North Hudson's 2002 Residents-Only List) and a decrease of only two in the top fifty (still six more African-Americans than on North Hudson's 2002 Residents-Only List). As the District Court noted, [t]he only tables that do not predict any added African Americans are Tables 7-2006 and 8-2006. Id. at 518. Those 2006 tables showed the most substantial change, but they also excluded a class of candidates included in the 1999 and 2002 lists. Table 7-2006 contains calculations which exclud[ed] those appointed or having a better rank outside [North Hudson's] local area. This additional exclusion eliminated candidates who ranked substantially better on another municipality's eligibility list. By Siskin's definition, a candidate had a substantially better rank elsewhere if his rank on the North Hudson expanded list was at least twice his best rank on another municipality's list (where lower numbers mean higher rankings on the eligibility lists). That is, a candidate ranked 12th on the expanded [North Hudson] list with a `best' rank order number of six (6) or better on some other list would be excluded from the expanded [North Hudson] list. Likewise, a candidate who ranked third on the North Hudson list but first on another municipality's list would be omitted, even though he had an identical chance of being hired by North Hudson under the Rule of Three. The candidates remaining on the hypothetical expanded lists for 2006 were then re-ranked. The result for the Tri-County expanded list was that no African-Americans were added to any of the ranges measured; all of them had a substantially better rank in another municipality. The District Court doubted the value of the 2006 tables: [W]hen the Court compares the results of Table 8-2006 to Tables 8-1999 and 8-2002,... it appears that the assumption underlying Table 8-2006 may not bear out in reality. Since Tables 8-1999 and 8-2002 are based on the actual number of applicants who were hired by another department, the results in those tables are grounded in actual past events. Id. at 518. Ultimately, the District Court concluded that the assumption in 8-2006 far over-emphasizes the impact of hiring in other jurisdictions on the number of African American applicants who would be highly ranked on the Tri-[C]ounty lists and found that the 2002 and 1999 results were more compelling. [8] Id. at 519. Siskin's overall assessment of the impact on African-Americans was that with the exception of the larger expanded ( i.e., Tri-County) area, there is a trivial increase in African Americans.