|
As our society becomes more litigious,
benefit and compensation consultants are called more often called to
testify in courts regarding pay practice matters, including expenditures
related to benefits and insurance as they relate to affirmative action
matters. This testimony must be both relevant and reliable.
In March of 1999, the United States
Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137 (1999) case that defined when a reliability challenge exists. The
Supreme Court ruled that reliability must be established in all types of
expert testimony, both scientific and nonscientific. The Court held that
the role of a trial judge was that of "gatekeeper," regarding both the
relevance and reliability of all expert testimony. The Court stated that
the Daubert opinion (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579
(1993)) was not intended to be limited to scientific cases only. Instead,
it should apply to all fields of expert testimony. Providers of expert
witness testimony must be prepared to describe why an analysis was
utilized and why the analysis and related data can be considered reliably
sufficient. For "reliability," the Supreme Court has established four
separate, nonexclusive tests:
- it can be illustrated that the
theory or technique can be tested
- the data has been subjected to
peer review and publication
- there is a known or potential
rate of error (i.e., the Standard Error)
- there is a level of general
acceptance in that particular discipline's community
This course is designed to assist
the agent who might need to apply knowledge items related to area
demographics and affirmative action matters in a litigation environment. |
