Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freeman
778 F.3d 463
4th Cir.2015Background
- Freeman began 2001 background checks on applicants (credit and criminal history) for certain positions.
- EEOC alleged these checks had a disparate impact on black and male applicants under Title VII.
- District court excluded EEOC’s expert Murphy’s testimony as unreliable under Rule 702 and granted Freeman summary judgment.
- EEOC produced multiple Murphy/Huebner expert reports; Freeman moved to exclude and for summary judgment.
- EEOC limited the class of affected applicants in time periods for criminal and credit checks; district court proceedings encompassed those limits.
- Murphy’s data and methodology contained numerous errors/omissions that the district court deemed unrecoverable, undermining reliability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Murphy’s testimony under Rule 702 | EEOC argues Murphy’s analysis is scientifically valid despite some late reports. | Freeman contends Murphy’s work is unreliable due to numerous errors and cherry-picking. | District court did not abuse discretion in excluding Murphy. |
| Reliability given data omissions and errors | EEOC asserts the data errors do not undermine overall reliability. | Freeman argues massive data omissions render analysis unreliable. | Ongoing data flaws justify exclusion of Murphy’s testimony. |
| Impact on summary judgment legitimacy | EEOC contends triable issues remain despite expert gaps. | Without reliable expert analyses, EEOC cannot prove prima facie disparate impact. | Affirmed summary judgment based on exclusion of EEOC’s expert. |
| Scope of learning from Daubert gatekeeping | EEOC claims reliability questions are for jury weight, not admissibility. | District court must act as gatekeeper under Daubert/Kumho. | Court properly applied Daubert/Kumho to exclude unreliable testimony. |
| Class period limitations impact | EEOC argues time-period scope should not foreclose claims. | Limitations are inconsequential given Murphy's unreliability. | Court did not reach merits beyond exclusion; affirmed on that basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; reliability and relevance)
- Westberry v. Gis-laved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) (reliability factors for Rule 702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (admissibility hinges on reliability; gatekeeping role)
- Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1983) (data scope limitations in expert analysis)
- Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 748 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014) (admission of Murphy-like testimony criticized; sampling flaws)
- Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004) (early criticism of Murphy's reports)
- Brown v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 765 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2014) (examples of basic data deficiencies affecting reliability)