Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Payroll

  • Wage and Hour Expert’s Testimony on Rounded Minutes Admitted

    Wage and Hour Expert’s Testimony on Rounded Minutes Admitted

    Jennmar manufactures and assembles products for use in agricultural, construction, energy, and mining industries, with locations across the United States. The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly employees of Jennmar. The Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar failed to pay employees wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar’s fifteen-minute time rounding policy, combined with mandatory safety and housekeeping pre-shift work, resulted in hourly employees performing approximately twenty minutes of unpaid compensable work per shift. 

    The Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of Richard A. Goldberg, an expert witness for Jennmar.

    Wage and Hour Expert Witness

    Richard A. Goldberg is a partner at Resolution Economics LLC, a firm that conducts economic and statistical analyses related to litigation and consulting matters. He has nearly 19 years of experience in labor and employment-related litigation support and consulting. His engagements involve state and federal wage-and-hour litigation, class action employment discrimination claims, and single-plaintiff matters. In addition, Goldberg partners with companies and their counsel to conduct proactive evaluations of pay equity and compliance with wage-and-hour laws. 

    Goldberg holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a master’s degree in political science with an emphasis in quantitative research methodology from Columbia University.

    Get the full story on challenges to Richard Goldberg’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    The Plaintiffs contended that the methodology employed by Goldberg was not reliable. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued that Goldberg did not address (1) how unpaid hours worked should be calculated; (2) how unpaid wages should not be calculated; and (3) the effects of Jennmar’s rounding practices. Further, the Plaintiffs contended that Goldberg’s testimony would not assist the factfinder to understand the evidence, is irrelevant, and is not rooted in personal knowledge.

    However, Goldberg based his conclusions on timekeeping and payroll data provided by Jennmar. Goldberg relied on this data to calculate a series of summary statistics for each employee (including averages, medians, and the percentages of shifts with rounding above or below certain thresholds). Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data. 

    Goldberg also attested to using the same methodology as Jennmar’s expert to determine the number of allegedly rounded minutes for each shift. 

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Goldberg.

    Key Takeaway:

    Goldberg’s work includes evaluating large data sets, such as timeclock entries and payroll information.

    The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert’s opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.

    Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Stacy Et Al V. Jennmar Corporation Of Virginia, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:21cv15
    Court Name: United States District Court, Virginia Western
    Order Date: September 30, 2025
  • Financial Analysis Expert’s Testimony on Employee Compensation Admitted

    Financial Analysis Expert’s Testimony on Employee Compensation Admitted

    This case arises from a contract dispute between Plaintiff Alorica Inc. and Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. concerning customer service outsourcing for AT&T.

    Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s conduct caused damages, including employee time lost to negotiating an amendment, addressing issues from the alleged breach, and repairing Defendant’s AT&T relationship.

    To quantify these damages, Defendant retained David N. Fuller, a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Fuller relied on payroll records for three employees and a declaration from Defendant’s corporate representative identifying the number of workdays those employees devoted to the relevant tasks. Using this information, Fuller calculated daily salary rates and multiplied them by the days reported, resulting in a damages figure of $33,900.77.

    Plaintiff filed a motion to strike and exclude Fuller’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiff contended that Fuller merely performed basic arithmetic without applying specialized expertise, arguing that his testimony would improperly lend undue credibility to Defendant’s damages claim.

    Financial Analysis Expert Witness

    David Neil Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. He is currently employed as the President of Value Incorporated (“VALUE”), a financial valuation consulting firm located in Irving, Texas.

    His educational background includes a Master of Business Administration degree from Southern Methodist University with a concentration in Finance, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Austin College with a concentration in Economics.

    Get the full story on challenges to David Fuller’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Admissibility Under Rule 702

    A. Fuller is qualified

    First, there is no dispute that Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Plaintiff did not challenge his credentials directly but argues that he failed to apply them in forming his opinions.

    Therefore, the Court held that Fuller’s background and certifications establish that he is qualified under Rule 702 to provide opinions on damages and financial analysis.

    B. Fuller’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact

    Plaintiff contended that his opinion is unhelpful because it is limited to “elementary-level arithmetic” requiring no expertise. Defendant responded that even simple calculations can be admissible when framed by specialized knowledge, and that Fuller’s testimony will aid the jury by organizing payroll data and time allocations into a coherent damages model. The Court agreed that Fuller’s testimony may assist the trier of fact by explaining how employee salaries and reported workdays translate into a damages figure. That the math is simple does not, by itself, render the opinion inadmissible.

    C. Fuller’s testimony is based on sufficient facts and data

    Fuller relied on payroll records and the Franklin Declaration to determine employee compensation and time spent on tasks. Alorica argued that Fuller failed to verify these sources and simply accepted the numbers provided.

    The Court found that Fuller’s reliance on payroll records and a sworn declaration provided a sufficient factual basis to satisfy Rule 702(b). The Court agreed that any challenge to those inputs’ reliability spoke to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.

    D. Fuller’s testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts of the case

    Fuller divided bi-weekly salaries by ten to calculate daily rates and multiplied those rates by the number of workdays listed in the Franklin Declaration, yielding a damages estimate of $33,900. Plaintiff characterized this as parroting numbers without methodology, while Tech Mahindra framed it as applying financial expertise to convert compensation data into damages.

    The Court concluded that Fuller’s methodology is straightforward but reliable for the limited purpose it serves. 

    II. Admissibility Under Rule 403

    Plaintiff argued that permitting Fuller to testify would unfairly prejudice the jury because cloaking simple arithmetic in the authority of expert testimony would lend improper weight to Defendant’s damages claim. Defendant responded that any weaknesses in Fuller’s analysis can be explored on cross-examination and that the testimony poses no risk of confusion or undue prejudice.

    The Court agreed with Defendant. Fuller’s testimony, though based on simple calculations, is probative of Defendant’s damages theory. Concerns about the simplicity of the arithmetic are properly addressed through cross-examination and competing evidence, not exclusion under Rule 403.

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff Alorica Inc.’s motion to strike and exclude Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.’s expert David Fuller.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found that Fuller applied his methodology consistently and transparently to the facts. While his calculations are not complex, they are replicable and tied to the data sources identified. To the extent Plaintiff believed Fuller should have done more independent verification, those criticisms are better addressed through cross-examination than exclusion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Alorica Inc. V. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:24cv30
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
    Order Date: September 05, 2025