This action arises out of Plaintiff Jon Evans’ employment with Defendant Critter Control Operations, Inc.
During this employment, Plaintiff brought multiple concerns to Defendants’ Human Resources (HR) staff Ms. Rebecca Dye regarding “unfair treatment, safety concerns, and potentially fraudulent activity.” After eight and a half months of employment, Defendants terminated Plaintiff on October 18, 2021. Since then, Plaintiff has become employed elsewhere.
Defendants filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts Laura Ingegneri and Michael J. Stokes.
Human Resources Expert Witness
Laura Ingegneri has over thirty years of HR experience and has conducted or reviewed over three hundred investigations.
Economics Expert Witness
Michael J. Stokes earned an MBA from the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst with a focus in entrepreneurship. He has 8 years of experience in providing expert analysis and testimony related to forensic economics, accounting, finance and statistics.
Discussion by the Court
Laura Ingegneri
In preparation of her report, Ingegneri reviewed the operative pleading, deposition transcripts of Ms. Dye and other employees of Critter Control, and over two dozen documents that were referenced during those depositions.
She concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations of serious misconduct are required to be “investigated promptly and thoroughly,” but “this did not appear to occur.”
Analysis
First, Defendants argued that Ingegneri’s testimony will not help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue because she did not use any specialized knowledge. Whether Defendants—specifically, their HR staff—faithfully applied those policies and practices is not as intuitive as Defendants contend, as it would require some baseline knowledge of the HR industry.
Second, Defendants argued that Ingegneri failed to “identify any specific principles or methods,” failed to “apply any specific principles and methods to the facts,” and made speculative conclusions. The content of the report showed otherwise. Ingegneri expressly stated the standards of internal investigations and handling employee complaints established by publications, reviewed Defendants’ own policies, and applied those standards and policies to specific facts she derived from a list of documents and party testimony.
Third, Defendants argued that Ingegneri’s testimony is unreliable because she based her report on incomplete information or false assumptions. According to Defendants, at Ingegneri incorrectly assumed that Defendants never investigated Plaintiff’s allegations. The Court did not adopt Defendants’ interpretation. Ingegneri concluded that a prompt and thorough investigation “did not appear to occur,” not that no investigation occurred at all.
Fourth, Defendants argued that Ingegneri’s conclusions pertaining to Defendants’ investigation are not relevant to Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim. According to Defendants, Ingegneri analyzed and opined “on allegations unrelated to the live claims” by listing the various categories of complaints made by Plaintiff before his termination that include, for example, wage and hour issues. But several of these complaints relate to the alleged “unlawful business practices” in which Plaintiff refused to participate, and those complaints are relevant to Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.
Michael Stokes
In preparing his report, Stokes reviewed three “alternative” pre-termination annual salaries ($100,000; $130,000; and $165,000), Plaintiff’s work life expectancy based on his age at the time of termination, and an allocation of fringe benefits. Based on this information, Stokes concluded that the present value of loss of Plaintiff’s earnings and benefits ranged from $442,661 to $1,206,330.
Analysis
Defendants argued that the three base earnings Stokes used to calculate damages are improper because they are “aspirational” and higher than Plaintiff’s actual earnings in the eight months he was employed by Defendants ($51,589) or that he could have earned over the entire year ($72,703). But they did not argue that Stokes’ methods and application of those methods to those numbers, aspirational as they might be, were unreliable. Plaintiff contended, and the Court agreed, that the use of hypothetical base earnings goes to the testimony’s weight, not admissibility
Defendants further took issue that the salary hypotheticals are borne only from Plaintiff’s counsel’s assumptions, so Stokes’ report violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Here, Stokes’ report openly recited what base earnings he relies upon for his calculations and explains that the source of those earnings was Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court found that this disclosure sufficient for the purposes of Rule 26.
Defendants’ concern that there is no evidence Plaintiff ever made, or was on track to make, $100,000, $130,000, or $165,000 while in Defendants’ employ is well-taken, however. In response, Plaintiff alludes to evidence that supports these numbers but has not yet made a specific showing of it apart from stating that a co-worker made “nearly $120,000.” The Court will entertain Defendants’ objection if that foundational evidence is not admitted before Stokes testifies.
Moreover, the fact that Stokes did not account for Plaintiff’s supposed mitigation of damages is another example of a point Defendants may test before the jury.
Finally, Defendants argued that Stokes’ declaration is an improper supplement to his report. It is not. Stokes’ declaration is only used to support Plaintiff’s responsive brief to Defendants’ motion, and the Court reviews it as such.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts Laura Ingegneri and Michael J. Stokes.
Key Takeaway
The use of hypotheticals, on its own, does not render an expert’s testimony unreliable. Rather, the proper vehicle through which the hypotheticals can be tested is cross-examination and introduction of contrary evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Evans V. Critter Control Operations Incorporated |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv2049 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Arizona |
| Order Date: | April 21, 2026 |
Leave a Reply