• EMPLOYMENT ISSUES RECENT CASES

Thompson, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.
This case began as a class action but was denied class certification, resulting in a group of 79 African American plaintiffs who are current or retired employees of the Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi (a.k.a., the Ingalls Shipyard). This shipyard builds ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, and is the largest employer on the Gulf Coast. The 79 plaintiffs are now individually suing NGSS alleging systemic patterns of racially-biased personnel decisions, including pay and promotion opportunities, as well as a hostile work environment.
Econ One was retained by The Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, to provide expert analysis regarding liability and back pay damages. Dr. Louis Lanier analyzed 14 years of personnel data from the shipyard, to uncover whether there were racially-biased patterns of employment outcomes. Dr. Lanier submitted two expert reports addressing liability. He has been deposed and provided testimony as to the existence of statistically-significant racial patterns in both pay and promotion outcomes to the disadvantage of African American employees. Dr. Lanier also has submitted several expert reports and provided testimony regarding back pay damages for individual plaintiff claims.

Craft, et al. v. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
The plaintiffs in this case were a group of inmates at San Bernardino County’s detention facilities who contested that certain individuals were denied their fourth amendment rights while in custody, in that full body cavity searches conducted by the Sheriff’s Department were: a) in group settings; b) on individuals who had not yet been arraigned and had no drug, weapon, or violence charges; and c) on individuals who already had been ordered released. Brian Kriegler was retained by counsel for the plaintiffs to identify which individuals fit into each of these categories. Using the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s database, Dr. Kriegler and his staff used statistical and computational programs to evaluate nearly 400,000 bookings, concluding that there were approximately 160,000 individuals and 337,000 bookings qualifying for class membership. This case settled for $25.5 million in 2008.

Fairfield v. Advantage Rent-A-Car
In this wage and hour class action, the plaintiffs were a group of Advantage Rent-A-Car hourly employees who contested that they were not correctly compensated for overtime and missed meal breaks. Brian Kriegler was retained by counsel for the plaintiffs to determine the class size. He recommended a sampling procedure for examining employees’ punch card and pay stub records so that the class size (number of people and number of hours) could be estimated. Using probabilistic and statistical analyses, Dr. Kriegler estimated: a) the number of work periods that did not accurately reflect the actual number of hours worked; b) the number of work periods for which employees were not compensated appropriately according to State law; and c) the number of individuals in the class. He gave deposition testimony to support his sampling methodology and analytical results. This case settled for $2.5 million in 2008.

Roby v. McKesson, et al.
Charles Mahla provided an analysis of the plaintiff’s damages resulting from a wrongful termination by this large, diverse pharmaceutical distributor. Dr. Mahla’s analysis encompassed not only the plaintiff’s lost worklife earnings, but also the impact on her retirement earnings. In addition, Dr. Mahla provided insight into the defendant’s financial structure and health to aid the court in determining punitive damages. The jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $19 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Mayer v. Computer Sciences Corp.
Charles Mahla was retained to provide an estimate of the plaintiff’s losses from the sexual harassment and wrongful termination by this large technology consulting company. Dr. Mahla’s analysis involved the estimation of the plaintiff’s “but-for” earnings as an entrepreneur, as she owned her own consultancy prior to being recruited by the defendant. Despite the belief by the defendant that the plaintiff’s losses were small based on a claim that her \"but-for\" income essentially was non-existent, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages consistent with Dr. Mahla’s estimated losses.

Smooth v. Del Paso Heights School District
Charles Mahla provided analysis and testimony for the defendant in a race/age/sex discrimination suit brought by a teacher who had been removed from an assistant superintendent position by the school board. Dr. Mahla demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claimed damages were overstated through a careful analysis of a merger between the defendant and another school district, showing that the plaintiff’s position was likely to disappear independent of any actions of the defendant. In addition, Dr. Mahla demonstrated that the plaintiff’s alleged retirement losses were overstated due to a faulty application of the CalStirs retirement formula by the plaintiff’s expert.