dc.contributor.author | Hersch, Joni, 1956- | |
dc.contributor.author | Bullock, Blair Druhan | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-07-09T21:12:00Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-07-09T21:12:00Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2365 (2014) | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1803/8932 | |
dc.description | article published in law review | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Experts routinely criticize three aspects of regression analyses presented by the opposing party in employment discrimination cases: omitted explanatory variables, sample size, and statistical significance. However, these factors affect the reliability of the regression results only in very limited circumstances. As a result, valid regression analyses do not provide the critical guidance that they should in employment discrimination cases. Our own statistical analyses of seventy-eight Title VII employment discrimination cases find that merely raising these critiques, even if spurious, reduces plaintiffs’ likelihood of prevailing at trial. We propose that courts adopt a peer-review system in which court-appointed economists, compensated by each party as a percentage of the total payment to econometric expert witnesses, review econometric evidence before the reports are submitted to the judge or jury. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 PDF (68 pages) | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Washington & Lee Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Discrimination in employment -- United States | en_US |
dc.subject.lcsh | Law | en_US |
dc.title | The Use and Misuse of Econometric Evidence in Employment Discrimination Cases | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |