Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Reasonable Accommodation

  • Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    This case involves the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant, the City of Springfield, prohibited Plaintiffs from operating a home for residents in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Defendant claimed their zoning ordinance prohibited the home from operating in an R-SF Zone because it is a “group home” under the City’s zoning code and there is another “group home” located within 1/4 mile. The City classified the home as a group home because the residents who occupy the home are in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The City denied Plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and ADA.

    Plaintiffs brought claims of failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under the ADA and the FHA.

    Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts in this matter. Stephen D. Villavaso was disclosed as an expert in professional and urban planning. Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent, who Plaintiffs wish to have testify as to the number of residential listings in the City of Springfield during a given timeframe. Finally, John Majer was disclosed to provide expert opinions concerning the operation of residential group homes for substance abuse treatment.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the proposed expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs for the reason that their proposed testimony did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 702.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP is a professional urban and regional planner and a land use/zoning attorney with over forty years of experience in city and regional planning, environmental regulations, land use law, public administration and zoning.

    Villavaso’s degrees include a Bachelor of Science in Economics and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of New Orleans, and a Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of New Orleans. He has served the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association, with thirty-five years of service to the APA — receiving both the Chapter’s Leadership and Distinguished Service Awards along the way. He is the Past-President of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association.

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

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent affiliated with Keller Williams Realty Elevate in Joplin, Missouri. Stevens has been practicing as a real estate professional since 2021 and is licensed by the Missouri Real Estate Commission.

    Discover more cases with Andrea Stevens as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    John M. Majer, Ph.D. is a full Professor of Psychology at Harry S. Truman College and a Consultant for the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois.

    Majer has extensive research experience in the field of clinical-community psychology, mostly involving persons with substance use disorders and sober living homes.

    Want to know more about the challenges John Majer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that the experts’ opinions are not based on reliable methodology, are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are based upon theories that have not been tested.

    Stephen Villavaso is an expert in professional and urban planning, who offers opinions on municipal zoning practices, the City’s application of its ordinances, and the compatibility of the spacing requirements with accepted planning principles and DOJ/HUD guidance. Andrea Stevens is a licensed real estate professional, who analyzes residential housing market conditions in Springfield, including the availability of suitable properties during the relevant timeframe. Dr. John Majer is an expert in the operation of residential recovery housing, who provides insight into the therapeutic and operational requirements of recovery homes, as well as the practical implications of spacing requirements on their viability.

    This Court agreed that the arguments raised by Defendant’s motion go to credibility and the weight of the testimony which are subjects that may be raised during cross-examination.

    However, federal courts should limit their review to the materials that were presented to the local land use board while considering reasonable accommodation claims, except in circumstances where the board prevents applicants from presenting sufficient information. This general rule however, does not apply to disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims.

    The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not prevented from providing the information they now seek to present. Plaintiffs were invited to resubmit their request to the proper individual, and asked to address several issues, which they chose to ignore when making their resubmission. Thus, the expert reports will be considered in the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. The expert reports will, however, be excluded in the failure to accommodate claim.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Stephen D. Villavaso, Andrea Stevens, and Dr. John Majer.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs’ experts may be relevant under Rule 702 and at this time, there is no basis to exclude them under Daubert. However, the Court excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony in the failure to accommodate claim because it was not presented to the City as part of Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: New Beginning Sanctuary V. City Of Springfield, Missouri
    Docket Number: 6:23cv3336
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: January 22, 2026

  • Vocational Rehabilitation Expert is Qualified to Serve as an Expert on the ADA and Loss of Earnings

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert is Qualified to Serve as an Expert on the ADA and Loss of Earnings

    It all started when Plaintiff, Maurice Young (“Young”), was employed by Defendant, Jabil, Inc. (“Jabil”) in the role of Machine Operator I (“Operator”). It should be noted that Young suffers from osteoarthritis in his hips which limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk.

    Young asked for a new accommodation, applying for the Engineering Technician I position (“Engineering Technician”) on October 29, 2022. However, Young’s employment with Jabil was officially terminated on November 1, 2022. As a result, Young contended that Jabil failed to accommodate him for other positions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

    On October 22, 2024, Young submitted the expert report of Dr. John Dieckman. Dieckman provided an ultimate conclusion that Jabil had alternate employment opportunities that they could have offered to Young as a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, Dieckman opined that Young lost at least $36,563 in earnings and $6,033 in benefits.

    Defendants filed a motion to strike the testimony of Dieckman primarily because he is not a qualified expert as to ADA compliance and economic losses.

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness

    Dr. John Dieckman is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor and Certified Disability Management Rehabilitation Specialist. He has held the position of Assistant Vocational Director at Proto-Worx since 2000.

    At Proto-Worx, Dieckman oversees the development, training, supervision, and direction of vocational staff. He has previously testified regarding wage loss, liability, and economic recovery in federal and state courts as well as in administrative hearings.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants sought to preclude Dieckman’s report as it pertains to both his ADA and Loss of Earnings findings.

    Dieckman explained that his vocational assessment was based on a review of numerous documents, including Jabil performance reviews of Young, the Jabil physician questionnaire, emails between Young and Jabil employees regarding the accommodation process, and a review of Jabil job listings.

    Dieckman explained that his analysis of lost earnings was based on a review of Young’s W-2 forms and taxes between 2018 and 2023.

    ADA Arguments

    1. Dieckman is not a qualified expert as to ADA compliance because Dieckman does not have any medical training or licenses

    2. Dieckman’s methodology regarding ADA compliance is unreliable because his finding that Jabil did not provide Young a reasonable accommodation was based solely on public job descriptions and conversations with Young

    3. Dieckman cannot opine on whether Jabil provided Young a reasonable accommodation because Dieckman did not interview anyone at Jabil as to what positions Young could perform or review job postings from the relevant period.

    Economic Loss Arguments

    1. Dieckman is not a qualified expert as to economic losses because Dieckman does not have any economics or business certifications or training

    2. Dieckman’s methodology regarding economic losses is unreliable because his finding that Young was entitled to economic losses was based on open positions as of May 2024, whereas the economic loss assessment covers the period between July 2022 and March 2023, and was calculated based on full time employment when Young was on a part-time schedule prior to his termination.

    3. Dieckman cannot opine on whether Jabil violated the ADA because Dieckman cannot provide a conclusion as to whether Young’s requested accommodations were an undue burden or whether Jabil should have placed Young into a new position

    4. Dieckman’s conclusions regarding Young’s economic losses would not help the jury because they are purely speculative.

    Analysis

    Qualification

    With his formal training in vocational rehabilitation, the Court held that Dieckman is a qualified vocational expert. After all, Dieckman has over thirty years’ experience as an Assistant Vocational Director wherein he has performed vocational evaluations of injured and disabled individuals and produced reports regarding wage and earning loss.

    Reliability

    Defendants’ challenge to Dieckman’s vocational assessment pertains to Dieckman’s failure to interview any Jabil employees. The Court held that Defendants’ challenge to the report’s credibility can be “addressed through vigorous cross-examination [rather] than through threshold exclusion.”  

    Defendants’ challenge to Dieckman’s analysis of lost earnings pertains to Dieckman’s use of open positions as of May 2024 instead of July 2022 to March 2023 and calculation of lost earnings based on full-time employment.

    As to Dieckman’s use of positions available as of May 2024, Dieckman was aware, from his interview with Young and review of the records, that Young had applied for an open Engineering Technician position. While Dieckman reviewed additional job postings as of May 2024, and determined that Young would have been able to fulfill the requirements for most of the positions, this does not negate Dieckman’s knowledge of at least one open position from the relevant period that he determined Young was able to perform.

    Moreover, the Court held that Dieckman’s use of full-time employment to calculate Young’s lost earnings is premised on the assumption that had Jabil provided Young a reasonable accommodation, such as a transfer to the Engineering Technician position, Young would have been able to return to work full-time.

    Courts in this Circuit have held that the future earning capacity model, which would allow for greater damages than identified by Dieckman’s Report, “is an accepted and reliable method for calculating future lost earnings.”

    Fit

    Dieckman’s vocational assessment and wage loss analysis is connected to the questions presented in this case, namely whether (1) Jabil failed to reasonably accommodated Young, and (2) if Jabil violated the ADA, what damages Young is entitled to. Dieckman’s assessment will assist the trier of fact in answering whether Young was able to perform other positions at Jabil and what wages Young lost as a result of his termination.

    Thus, the Court held that there is a sufficient nexus between the facts of the case and Dieckman’s Report to satisfy the “fit” standard.

    Oral Argument

    The decision to hold a Daubert hearing is discretionary with the Court and is not necessary when “the facts upon which the Court must make its determination have been adequately presented to the Court in the parties’ papers and accompanying exhibits.”

    Based on the Court’s review of Dieckman’s Report and the parties’ submissions, which the Court finds are sufficient to render a determination, a Daubert hearing is not warranted in this case.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to strike the testimony of Dr. John Dieckman.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Dieckman’s report met the Daubert standard because he articulated his methodology and the sources on which he relied.
    • Dieckman is qualified because he has performed vocational evaluations of injured and disabled individuals and produced reports regarding wage and earning loss.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Young V. Jabil, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:23cv4992
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: May 19, 2025