Arizona federal district court denies Critter Control motions to exclude expert testimony
Updated
Updated · Bloomberg Law · Apr 24
Arizona federal district court denies Critter Control motions to exclude expert testimony
9 articles · Updated · Bloomberg Law · Apr 24
The court ruled that testimony from a human resources expert and a damages expert for a former Critter Control employee is admissible in a wrongful termination case.
The judge found both experts met Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards, stating any challenges to their methods or assumptions should be addressed through cross-examination rather than exclusion.
This decision allows the former employee to present expert opinions on the company’s workplace complaint investigations and potential lost earnings, potentially strengthening the plaintiff’s case against Critter Control Operations Inc.
How do experts calculate the monetary value of a career ruined by wrongful termination?
What critical mistakes in workplace investigations could cost a company millions in court?
As legal standards shift, could proving workplace discrimination soon become easier for employees?
Is the legal standard for expert testimony making it easier for flawed science to reach juries?
With judges as 'gatekeepers,' why are courts letting juries decide on expert credibility?