Opinion ID: 777187
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Store Management versus Corporate Management.

Text: 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