Plaintiff Brian Kniffen brought claims against Defendant East Wenatchee Water District under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Washington common law tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Kniffen was a Utility Field Inspector (“UFI”), and his job consisted, at least in part, of inspecting various entities served by the water district, which involved opening and closing water valves. In May 2019, Kniffen experienced an on-the-job injury to his back while torquing a valve.
After the injury, Kniffen was restricted with respect to lifting, squatting, and crawling. In August of 2019, he underwent an extraforaminal discectomy, a procedure on his lower back, and continued to work on a light duty basis, including the assistance of another employee to turn valves. In June of 2020, Kniffen called for assistance with a water valve, but no one was available, and he reinjured his back while twisting. As a result, he reopened his original worker’s compensation claim from May 2019.
Defendant sought to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness, Allison West‘s testimony on its human resources practices.
Human Resources Expert Witness
Allison Kracov West received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a Juris Doctor from Golden Gate University School of Law in 1994. She maintained a practice in employment law in San Francisco until she opened a consulting service in 2000, dealing with workplace investigations and human resource training.
West has delivered trainings on employment issues to public and private entities and has been a speaker at human resources association conferences. She holds certificates demonstrating proficiency in human resource practices and attends continuing education courses.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant moved to exclude West’s testimony, arguing that she offered legal conclusions and made speculative assertions about human resource practices. Plaintiff assured that West will not provide testimony at trial on what reasonable accommodation law is or any legal conclusions about whether the law was violated, but argued that her opinion is well supported and will provide the jurors with additional context beyond the scope of general knowledge.
Defendant argued that West’s testimony would offer nothing more than what the jurors may deduce for themselves after the presentation of evidence and is essentially full of legal conclusions.
In forming her opinion and amendment, West reviewed the record as well as a “variety of resources that assist Human Resource (HR) professionals to develop industry standards that are recognized as ‘standard,’ ‘reasonable,’ or ‘best practices’ for the handling of employer-employee issues in all aspects of human resources.” Given her background in employment law and consulting work, West appeared to be well versed in such standards.
Analysis
The Court agreed with Defendant that some of West’s testimony unduly usurped the role of the Court and the jury, and therefore is excluded. West’s report detailed instruction on Washington State law, included findings that appeared speculative—such as the assertion that potential points for accommodation “fell through the cracks”—and offered conclusions that were properly left for the jury.
Though Plaintiff argued that the ultimate issue of law is whether an accommodation is reasonable, not whether Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process, the Court disagreed, finding them intertwined. Therefore, to be admissible at trial, West had to limit her testimony to: (1) what the accommodation and interactive process looks like, including the proper role of administrators; (2) examples of reasonable accommodations; (3) how employers typically engage in the process of accommodating disabled employees; and (4) what steps Defendants took in the accommodation and interactive process.
By focusing her opinion on these specific topics, West could help the jury evaluate whether the Defendant followed human resource standards—without directly stating a legal conclusion herself.
Held
The Court granted in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Allison West.
Key Takeaway:
The admissibility of expert testimony, whether scientific or not, must assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue by providing information “beyond the common knowledge. While an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue, an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kniffen V. East Wenatchee Water District |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv344 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Eastern |
| Order Date: | June 27, 2025 |
Leave a Reply