Opinion ID: 2994089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Barrett’s Testimony

Text: Citing Daubert, plaintiffs characterize Dr. Barrett’s testimony that the examination was content valid and that the final test scores could be used for rank-order promotions as nothing more than inadmissible conjecture, arguing that the testimony lacks scientific validity. Daubert involved expert testimony in a personal injury suit involving a prescription drug taken by an expectant mother. The drug was alleged to have caused birth defects in plaintiff’s children. The district court granted summary judgment in behalf of the drug company finding petitioner’s scientific evidence and the principle upon which it was based were not sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field to which it belongs. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 583. Likewise, plaintiffs in the present case claim that Dr. Barrett’s opinions are unsubstantiated and lack scientific validity. His opinions, it is argued, were nevertheless admitted by the district court because of Dr. Barrett’s expertise. Appellants contend that the district court’s decision was erroneous. Under Daubert, the testimony of a scientific expert is admissible only if it is both relevant and reliable. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1171 (1999). In the present case, appellants challenge only the reliability of the admitted expert testimony. A district court enjoys broad latitude both in deciding how to determine reliability and in making the ultimate reliability determination. Id. It is clear from the record that the district court recognized the applicability of Daubert to Dr. Barrett’s testimony. Furthermore, while appellants broadly assert that the district judge failed to consider Daubert in making his admissibility determination, their argument actually focuses on what they perceive to be the district court’s improper application of the Daubert framework. Appellants contend that Dr. Barrett’s testimony fails to meet the reliability prong of Daubert because there was no showing that his opinions were scientifically valid. We review the district court’s reliability determination for abuse of discretion, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., 119 S.Ct at 1171, and affirm. The Daubert inquiry is a flexible one and is not designed to serve as a definitive checklist or test, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94, but rather to ensure that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., 119 S.Ct. at 1176. In the present case, it is clear that Dr. Barrett’s testimony had ’a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’ Id. at 1175 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592). Dr. Barrett has extensive academic and practical experience in designing employment evaluations. Furthermore, it is not accurate to claim that the district judge declined to conduct an inquiry into the scientific validity of Dr. Barrett’s opinion. As the district court noted, Dr. Barrett based his opinions, at least in part, on the job analysis that Barrett & Associates meticulously formulated which detailed a relationship between the skills measured in the examination and an individual’s effectiveness as a lieutenant. Furthermore, while plaintiffs contend that the general scientific literature in the area consists of a single unpublished study, it is undisputed that Dr. Barrett himself has authored approximately fifty articles dealing with employee selection and promotion testing for peer-reviewed journals. This is not a case in which the expert failed to conduct any studies or analysis to substantiate his opinion. See Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 344 (7th Cir. 1995). Given these facts, it is clear that the district judge’s decision to admit Dr. Barrett’s testimony was not manifestly erroneous. See id.