Fourth Circuit Finds EEOC's Expert Report Unreliable Under Federal Rules of Evidence
1 min read
Feb 28, 2015
As part of an employer's business in providing integrated services for high level events, it commenced background checks of all prospective employees, including credit checks for positions dealing with "credit sensitive" information. An employee who was denied a position based on the employer's credit filed suit with the EEOC. The EEOC later issued a letter of determination that the employer's background and credit checks violated Title VII. The claim was later amended to state the background and credit checks also had a disparate impact on black applicants.
In proving its case, the EEOC obtained the services of an analytical expert. The employer moved to have the expert's testimony dismissed on the basis the testimony was "rife with analytical errors" and "completely unreliable." The district court granted the employer's motion stating the EEOC's expert testimony did not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which sets forth the requirements for expert testimony in a lawsuit. The EEOC appealed, sending the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal in the case, EEOC v. Freeman, No. 13-2365 (4th Dist. Feb. 20, 2015), the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court, noting that the district court had identified an alarming number of errors and analytical fallacies in the expert's reports, making it impossible to rely on any of his conclusions. Further, the court found that the sheer number of mistakes and omissions in the expert's analysis rendered it "outside the range where experts might reasonably differ." The Fourth Circuit, therefore, found that the district court had not abused its discretion in finding the EEOC's expert testimony unreliable.
Employers should be aware that the EEOC has failed in the past to provide experts that meet the standard of Federal Rule 702, and should not be afraid to object to so called "expert testimony," where clear mistakes are evident. If you have questions about this case or the issues, please contact Thaddeus Harrell of Hinshaw's Fort Lauderdale office.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Brian McGrath Discusses Far-Reaching Impact of a NY Foreclosure Ruling on Mortgage Industry



