Opinion ID: 2653912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wadley’s Report

Text: Roy Wadley’s expert report relies on national and state energy consumption data and a comparison of fourteen electric bills from black and white residents in the City. However, as with the consumption comparison chart and the state and national data, nothing in Wadley’s report shows that the white comparators analyzed in his report were similarly situated to Freeman. In fact, the comparison of City resident data is based on electric bills of black City residents from 2004, 2008, and 2010. Yet, the data for the white resident comparators are based on energy consumed in 2005. There is no evidence that weather conditions for these various dates—spanning many years—produced “similar” electricity consumption. Nor is there any indication that the homes, living conditions, or energy use in those homes were similar in any way. Notwithstanding these deficiencies in the national, state, and City comparisons, Wadley’s report concludes that the disparities in the electric bills of the City’s white and black residents are “evidence of discrimination.” While the 3 The remainder of Freeman’s interrogatory responses contains non-factual statements concerning the nature of Freeman’s claims and allegations. 11 Case: 13-14610 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 12 of 14 Court must view the evidence in plaintiff Freeman’s favor at this summary judgment stage, the Court need not accept Wadley’s legal conclusion because it is unsupported by the facts. See Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) (“This court has consistently held that conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value.”); see also Hilburn v. Murata Electronics N. Am., Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he absence of any specific facts which would substantiate [the expert’s] conclusion deprives [her conclusions] of any probative value.”).