In EEOC v. University Of Miami, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30027 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2022),the Commission filed an action on behalf of university professor Louise DavidsonSchmich, alleging that the defendant failed to pay her less than a similarly-situated maleprofessor (Dr. Kroger) on the basis of her gender in violation of Title VII of the CivilRights Act. The defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that the court precludeexpert evidence from Dr. Erin George, an economist employed by the EEOC. The courtdenied the motion. The EEOC tasked Dr. George with calculating back pay for Dr.Davidson-Schmich with two assumptions: (i) that Dr. Davidson-Schmich should haveearned the same salary as Dr. Kroger when he was hired by the University in 2007; and(ii) that Dr. Davidson-Schmich would have received the same percentage pay raiseseach year that she actually received, which percentage pay raises would be applied tothe salary assumed under (i). Id. at *3. The defendant argued that the two assumptionswere faulty and that Dr. George's back pay calculations of the monies allegedly owed toDr. Davidson-Schmich should not be admitted because they were unreliable andamounted to simple arithmetic that a jury would be able to perform. Id. at *4. The courtexplained that the inquiry turned on whether there was a factual basis for theassumptions underlying Dr. George's opinion that rendered it reliable. The court foundthat there was, given testimony regarding other administrators stating that Dr. DavidsonSchmich was underpaid, that market and merit adjustments were not provided to her,and that two ad hoc university committees that analyzed salary differentials between26© Duane Morris LLP 2023The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.