Missouri Court of Appeals affirms challenges to Expert Witness Testimony
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Ann B. Plunkett
President, WorkPlace Partners, Inc.
314-993-6467
DATE: May 10, 2012
Missouri Court of Appeals affirms challenges to Expert Witness Testimony
William Patrick HILL and Jacques Hughes, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross–Respondents, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Defendant, James Murphy, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent/Cross–Appellant.
Nos. ED 96207, ED 96174.
Ann Plunkett of WorkPlace Partners testified as an Expert Witness on behalf of the Plaintiff in this hostile work environment lawsuit, which was brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The jury returned verdicts in plaintiffs’ favor assessing actual and punitive damages. The verdict was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals on May 1, 2012.
In the appeal, Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in allowing Ann Plunkett to testify as an expert because (1) her opinions constituted an improper instruction of the law, and (2) the fields of human resources and law are outside the scope of section 490.065. Defendant also asserted that the trial court plainly erred in allowing Ms. Plunkett’s testimony because it only served to determine the credibility of the plaintiffs and the “conduct at issue.” Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting Ms. Plunkett’s testimony because the field of human resources and law is outside the scope of section 490.065. Finally, Defendant argued that the court plainly erred in admitting Ms. Plunkett’s testimony because it served to determine the credibility of plaintiffs’ complaints about Defendant’s ineffective prevention measures, investigation, and remedial resources. All of Defendant’s arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeals.
In the case Ms. Plunkett testified to her opinion that defendant’s written policy did not constitute a comprehensive anti-discrimination, anti-harassment policy for its workforce and she explained what good human resources practices and EEOC enforcement guidance required and how defendant’s written policy, investigation, and response deviated from them. The Court held that the facts in the record, including the evidence of Ms. Plunkett’s expertise and her use of professionally recognized objective standards that are not within a lay person’s common knowledge, support the trial court’s exercise of discretion. The trial court carefully exercised and did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ms. Plunkett’s knowledge of EEOC enforcement guidance and standard human resources practices were not matters of such common knowledge as to invade the province of the jury in the context of this case. The Appeals Court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Ms. Plunkett to testify as an expert to her opinions based on EEOC enforcement guidance and generally accepted human resources practices.
For the complete opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals see: