Siring v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education ex rel. Eastern Oregon University
927 F. Supp. 2d 1069
D. Or.2013Background
- Rosemary Siring, a tenured professor, moved from Montana to a tenure-track position at Eastern Oregon University in 2006.
- In her third year she was evaluated; in the fourth year she received a one-year terminal contract and was terminated.
- Siring alleges age and perceived disability as the basis for termination.
- Plaintiff proffered Dr. Jean Stockard as an expert on tenure-track evaluation, review processes, and Oregon University System procedures.
- Stockard reviewed thousands of pages of documents, deposition transcripts, emails, and the EOU Promotion and Tenure Handbook, and issued a report and supplemental report.
- Defendant moved to exclude Stockard’s reports under FRE 702/Daubert, arguing unreliability, inaccurate facts, and lack of helpfulness to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Stockard under FRE 702/Daubert | Stockard is qualified by substantial Oregon university experience and applies reliable, specialized knowledge. | Stockard relies on incomplete facts and lacks reliable methodology; testimony would mislead or prejudice. | Stockard is admissible; not excluded on basis of reliability, but some limitations apply. |
| Reliability based on experience for non-scientific expert | Stockard’s 40 years in academia and OAR compliance provide a reliable foundation. | Stockard must show how experience leads to conclusions and standards. | Stockard’s experience suffices; the court accepts reliance on experience without a scientific framework. |
| Assistance to the jury vs. impermissible legal conclusions | Stockard helps explain tenure policies and compliance, aiding the jury. | Stockard’s opinions may interpret Oregon law and substitute judicial role. | Stockard may testify on tenure standards and procedures; does not usurp court’s law-explanation role. |
| Potential for testimony about intent or motive | Stockard’s testimony could be probative of discriminatory impact and process deficiencies. | Stockard’s conclusions about intent or motive amount to impermissible state-of-mind testimony. | Stockard may not opine on defendants’ intent, motive, or state of mind; such opinions are excluded. |
| Relevance and probative value vs. unfair prejudice | Evidence of deviations from usual Oregon University System procedures helps show discriminatory or nondiscriminatory reasons. | Risk of prejudice and confusion; not necessary to prove discrimination. | Stockard’s testimony is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; probative value outweighs prejudice, with caveat on potential confusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping admissibility of expert testimony)
- Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 709 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2013) (flexible reliability standard; not all Daubert factors apply)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (testability and methodology appropriate but flexible; non-scientific expertise)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (non-scientific experts rely on industry knowledge; court may assess relevance)
- United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (reliability of non-scientific expert testimony depends on knowledge and experience)