Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The defendants hired a Recruiting Expert Witness to provide expert testimony. The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion.
Facts: This case (Rideau v. Lafayette Health Ventures Inc et al – United States District Court – Western District of Louisiana – April 26th, 2019) involves a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff illegally denied her FMLA leave and retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA rights, which culminated in her terminated from employment. The defendants have retained Timothy J. Stanley (Recruiting Expert Witness) to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The plaintiff argues that Stanley is not qualified to render an opinion in this case because he has never worked as a vocational expert or a vocational rehabilitation advisor or expert. In addition, the plaintiff claims that Stanley has never authored any professional literature, has never been qualified as an expert in any case and has not written no litigation reports in the last five years. The plaintiff also alleges that Stanley does not posses a college degree, has never taught a course at a college or community college on physician recruitment, and has never given lectures or seminars on the subject.
The court opines that the defendants have established that Stanley is a veteran physician recruiter with twenty-five years of experience in the industry. The plaintiff’s challenges to Stanley’s qualifications should go to the weight and credibility of his opinions rather than their admissibility.
The plaintiff also contends that Stanley’s opinions are based on insufficient facts with no analytical methods applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiff argues that the methodology used by Stanley is not subject to validation, testing, or any other aspects of reliability. In addition, Stanley never reviewed, requested, or considered the plaintiff’s employment agreement in reaching his opinions. In addition, the plaintiff states that Stanley neither used nor referred to any validated or peer-reviewed labor market methodology, and that Stanley testified that he has never heard of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The court opines that the defendants have made a sufficient showing that Stanley’s testimony is based on enough facts or data, that the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that Stanley applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Timothy J. Stanley is denied.