Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Sexual Harassment

  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Workplace Dynamics Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Workplace Dynamics Admitted

    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.

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

    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
  • Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on the Causes and Effects of Sexual Harassment

    Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on the Causes and Effects of Sexual Harassment

    Raeshon Strickland filed a lawsuit against Associated Foods Stores, Inc., alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work environment. Strickland further contended that she experienced retaliation after opposing or reporting the misconduct.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude part of the expert report prepared by Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D. while Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Defendant’s expert Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. under Rule 702. 

    Psychology Expert Witnesses

    Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., is a Professor Emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a distinguished career dedicated to understanding and addressing gender-based violence, workplace sexual harassment, and women’s psychological well-being.

    Fitzgerald received her Ph.D. in Psychology from The Ohio State University in 1979, following her M.A. from the same institution and a B.A. in Psychology (magna cum laude) from the University of Maryland. Her academic journey has been marked by a steadfast commitment to investigating sexual harassment, particularly in institutional settings such as academia, the military, and the workplace.

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

    Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. is a fellowship-trained forensic psychologist. Her areas of expertise include evaluations for the criminal courts, family court and civil matters.

    She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Utah.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    a. Defendant’s Motion to Partially Exclude

    Fitzgerald’s testimony pertains to “the nature, extent and causation of the [alleged] injures, damages, losses, and harms sustained by [Plaintiff],” among other things.

    Defendant sought to exclude only Part II of her report, which contains “a review of the scientific literature on sexual harassment: its nature, organizational causes, and its psychological consequences to the individuals who experience it.” Defendant did not challenge Fitzgerald’s qualifications, but argues that Part II of the report is not reliable or relevant under Rule 702, and is unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

    The Defendant first argued that Part II of Fritzgerald’s report is not relevant because it “provided academic theories of sexual harassment,” with no “analysis specific to [Plaintiff] or [Defendant]” regarding “the alleged emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff because of her employment at AFS,” and because it will not “advance a material aspect of the case.”

    Upon reviewing Part II, the Court concluded it is relevant. The studies found in Part II provide the scientific knowledge upon which Fitzgerald’s conclusions are based in part and are not themselves conclusions about the case. Rather, and in addition to the studies, Fitzgerald’s ultimate opinions rest on “the facts of the present case,” and “methods of clinical science.”

    Here, Part II discussed the causes of sexual harassment, emotional and psychological consequences of sexual harassment, and organizational climate for sexual harassment. Because the scientific studies cited to in Part II go beyond mere discussion of gender stereotypes, the Court found that Part II will help the trier of fact understand issues that are not “well within a layperson’s common knowledge.”

    b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

    Plaintiff argued that Cohn’s report is unreliable because (1) she did not conduct a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff; (2) she did not ask to review the documentation from Plaintiff’s expert’s evaluation; (3) she did not understand the diagnostic importance of the specificity of certain trauma symptoms; and (4) her report contains certain factual errors and faulty assumptions.

    However, Cohn’s testimony does not seek to diagnose Plaintiff, but instead opines as to the purported flawed reasoning of Fitzgerald. The Court agreed with Defendant that it is reasonable for Cohn to rely on only the relevant documents available in the case, including Plaintiff’s therapy records, Fitzgerald’s report, pleadings, deposition transcripts, and other court filings.

    The Court further agreed with Defendant that the mere fact Cohn did not review the underlying data of Fitzgerald’s evaluation of Plaintiff, alone, does not cause Cohn’s expert report as a whole to be unreliable under Rule 702. 

    Held

    • The Court denied Defendant’s partial motion to exclude the testimony of Louise Fitzgerald.
    • The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert witness, Nancy Cohn.

    Key Takeaway:

    Courts have excluded expert testimony involving gender stereotypes on the grounds that such testimony could be understood by a lay person. Fitzgerald’s report discusses causes and effects of sexual harassment in the workplace, as opposed to general stereotypes.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Strickland V. Associated Food Stores
    Docket Number: 1:23cv30
    Court Name: United States District Court, Utah
    Order Date: September 30, 2025