Solangie Acosta was a Muskegon Heights Police Department(“MHPD”) law enforcement officer between 2017 and 2022 who brought nine claims against her former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, disability status, and an exercise of her worker’s compensation rights.
Defendants filed a motion to preclude testimony by Acosta’s expert Wendy Patrick, a former prosecutor and law enforcement trainer, who intended to testify regarding law enforcement practices and the difficulty that officers face in making complaints, including sexual harassment complaints, against other officers and their superiors.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Wendy L. Patrick, J.D., Ph.D. has been researching, training, presenting, and publishing within the field of gender discrimination and sexual harassment for over 20 years. She regularly teaches and trains on the insidious progression of gender-based discrimination and harassment within professional relationships, why victims remain employed in positions of power inequality when they are targeted, and the hallmarks of a discriminatory workplace culture.
Patrick is a certified Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) Certified Trainer for law enforcement and provides consulting services and training in trauma-informed sexual assault response and investigation on a national level.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants moved to preclude Patrick’s testimony on “empirical documentation and testimony regarding workplace dynamics including discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation within a male-dominated workplace” and “the potential adverse effects likely to impact a female law enforcement officer targeted as described.”
Defendants argued that Patrick lacked sufficient qualifications and that Patrick’s expert report “at no point even attempts to discuss, reference, or even acknowledge the facts of this case” given that “the only [case-specific] documents reviewed and information considered was Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.”
Acosta responded that Patrick’s expert report and curriculum vitae establish that she has specialized knowledge as a certified law enforcement trainer and as a published author regarding law enforcement practices. Acosta submitted persuasive authority from federal trial courts indicating that such testimony may be admissible in sexual harassment cases involving police officers.
Defendants, however, have not presented any controlling Sixth Circuit authority indicating that general expert testimony on the subjects noted in Patrick’s report should be excluded on the facts presently before the Court.
The Court concluded that Defendants have failed to establish the wholesale inadmissibility of Patrick’s expert testimony.
That said, Defendants are free to object to specific opinions offered by Patrick if they, for example, violate Federal Rule of Evidence 403 or any other applicable rules. Defendants are also free to object if Patrick attempts to apply her general testimony to the specific facts of this case to the extent that Patrick failed to disclose such an opinion in her expert report.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony by expert Wendy Patrick without prejudice subject to the guidance provided above.
Key Takeaway
Expert testimony about the tendencies of victims of sexual harassment does not require specific knowledge about the parties. Experts routinely offer general testimony about their field of expertise without knowledge of the case at bar.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Acosta V. Muskegon Heights |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv972 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Michigan Western |
| Order Date: | January 06, 2026 |
Leave a Reply