Nov 12

Print this Post

Statistical Sophistication Would Have Provided a Different Liability Answer

Economists and other financial experts are often hired to assess damages, assuming liability.  However liability can sometimes be established or disproven based on statistics.

For example, in a recently affirmed case involving employment discrimination, the application of a simple method failed to provide the Court with information that would likely have changed their decision.  The Federal Court (and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals) concluded employer discrimination against protected classes occurred based on a simple calculation commonly referred to as the “four-fifths rule” or the “80% rule”.  In contrast, more rigorous statistical methods suggest otherwise and the City of Akron, Ohio may have been unfairly penalized. Click here to read more.

About the author

Nicole Liska

I am a Principal at Fulcrum Inquiry, an accounting and economic consulting firm that performs damage analysis for commercial litigation, forensic accountings, financial investigations, and business valuations. I hold an ABD and MA in economics from the University of California, San Diego. I perform damages analyses and serve as a damages expert witness. My resume is on Fulcrum's website.

Permanent link to this article: http://betweenthenumbers.net/2013/11/statistical-sophistication-would-have-provided-a-different-liability-answer/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>