Background
Four former employees or applicants of non-South Asian background sued Infosys, alleging discrimination based on race and national origin. The plaintiffs relied on an expert report by labor economist David Neumark, who used a name-matching methodology to analyze demographic data. The district court excluded Neumark’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence Seven Hundred and Two, denied class certification, and denied a request to supplement summary judgment briefs with additional data before granting summary judgment to Infosys.
The court’s reasoning
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard. The court found Neumark unqualified because he admitted to having no experience or training in identifying South Asian names. The court also found his methodology unreliable as the plaintiffs offered no evidence of testing, error rates, or peer review. Regarding class certification, the court noted the plaintiffs conceded they could not meet Rule Twenty-Three requirements without Neumark’s analysis. The court affirmed the denial of supplemental briefing because the plaintiffs had the opportunity to supplement the record years earlier but declined. Finally, the court upheld summary judgment on individual claims, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove pretext for adverse employment actions or that the work environment was sufficiently intolerable for constructive discharge.
What it means going forward
Employers may successfully challenge expert statistical evidence in discrimination cases if the expert lacks specific qualifications or if the methodology lacks a scientific foundation. Plaintiffs must ensure they present reliable statistical evidence early in litigation to support class certification and summary judgment motions.