Expert Witness Blog
In the recent appellate decision of Odom v. L.A. Community College Dist., 2025, the role and admissibility of testimony from a Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Expert Witness were central to the outcome of a high-profile employment discrimination case. This matter illustrates the critical importance of expert witness reliability and the rigorous application of evidentiary standards in sexual harassment litigation.
Case Background and Parties
The plaintiff, a tenured professor at a Los Angeles community college, brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation against the Los Angeles Community College District and a vice president of student services. The plaintiff alleged that over an eight-month period in 2017, the vice president subjected her to repeated inappropriate comments and advances. When she rebuffed these advances, she claimed the vice president retaliated by attempting to move her academic program and terminate her staff. The case proceeded to trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Role and Methods of the Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Expert Witness
At trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from a Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Expert Witness. The expert was retained to provide the jury with context regarding workplace sexual harassment, including patterns of behavior, the psychological impact on victims, and the typical institutional responses to such complaints. The expert’s methodology included a review of the plaintiff’s account, relevant workplace policies, and the broader literature on sexual harassment in academic settings. The expert also addressed the plausibility of the plaintiff’s experiences and the likely effects of the alleged retaliation on her professional standing and emotional well-being.
Court’s Reliability and Daubert Analysis
The trial court admitted the expert’s testimony, finding it relevant to the jury’s understanding of the dynamics of sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. However, the appellate record reveals that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were not limited to the expert’s testimony. The court also admitted 20-year-old newspaper articles and evidence of the vice president’s unrelated misdemeanor convictions. Furthermore, testimony from a student who had filed a separate harassment complaint against a different administrator was allowed, despite its tenuous connection to the plaintiff’s claims.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, scrutinized the trial court’s approach to expert and lay testimony. The appellate court determined that the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence—including the expert’s commentary on matters outside the scope of the plaintiff’s specific allegations—compromised the fairness of the proceedings. The court emphasized that expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, and must not serve as a conduit for otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Effect of the Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in noneconomic damages, a verdict that the defendants challenged as excessive and tainted by evidentiary errors. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the cumulative effect of improperly admitted evidence, including aspects of the expert’s testimony, warranted a new trial. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court’s decision underscores the necessity for trial courts to rigorously apply standards governing expert witness testimony, ensuring that such evidence assists the trier of fact without introducing unfair prejudice.
The Odom case stands as a cautionary example of the profound influence a Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Expert Witness can have on the trajectory and outcome of employment litigation. It also highlights the appellate courts’ vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of the trial process through strict adherence to evidentiary rules and the Daubert standard for expert testimony.